Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

On the other hand, if you have a specific price target in mind when design a console, those 6 dollars between 500 & 1000 might be worth it. Also, smaller units is still available for companies, it is just the public that don't want smaller models anymore. But I would be surprised to see that the nx has an hard drive smaller than 500 Gb (unless they go the flash route).

Yes to the first bit, no to your hairbrained theory. Really, they can get a better result for less by including a 500GB - 1TB HDD for digital distribution, DLC and saves paired with some form of optical media for physical distribution. There's not really much advantage to having removable media that you can write to for a console in 2015. Storage is cheap so that's not an issue. There's also no huge advantage for read speeds either. Literally there's no reason why you would want this.

That said, moving back to cartridges? That's a whole other story with all sorts of other ins and outs. Still a debate that lingers on. Though again I suspect that the ship may have sailed. For different reasons though. I think by the time it's a truly viable option again, and that day will come, digital distribution will be the main game. At which point they'll not take the risk and instead just sell an optional optical drive to support the very, very cheap disks for the minority who still want it.

Very true. I was just trying to shut down the theory that a 100GB HDD would somehow be drastically cheaper than a 500GB one. I can't see any reason why they would go for less than 500GB if they're going down the HDD route. For flash? Twice as much costs about twice as much so it's all fair game. HDDs? Less so.

there is a lack of options in that poll.

i think the NX is mainly a service that stretches over all current and upcoming nintendo consoles and a few thrid party devices like smartphones etc.

When I project on NX what I don’t like about the current situation and what I love, I hope to see the awesome 3d return, perhaps as a premium feature even. What I don’t like is the fact that one system has so many games I like to play and the other has other games I like to play but I need entirely new hardware to do that. That segregation is something I’d love to see come to an end with the wii U and 3ds.

So there’s my cognitive bias. Technology wise, multiple sets of hardware for the same ecosystem works great these days. Assets and detail can be increased or decreased depending on form factor and intended use. So the tv version of luigi’s mansion 3 will have higher res stuff than the portable version but be essentially the exact same thing, for instance.

Solves your entire hybrid problem. I still think that unification is where nintendo would like to go to - they hinted at it as much. What it will do in form factors will be another matter entirely from that point onwards.

@erv:
I said a few pages back that I like this idea, worth repeating given the tangent the thread is going though. And again, I think it's worth repeating that I don't think the NX is the codename for that entire generation of products. I think the NX is the first and the other ones will come later. And going further I think that the first device will be a portable system. Purely because I think it'll be far easier to impress us with new portable hardware.

Then a year or so after that they come out with the next generation not-NX home console. Which launches with a library that includes more visually impressive versions of games already out on NX. Possibly with cross-buy to drag people in but not necessarily. That's my prediction.

@skywake: That sounds likely too. I do think the first new hardware we're going to see is portable in mindset. Whether or not it's an isolated portable thing, or capable to do more in the home, depends on how nintendo wants to communicate the concept. If a business like nintendo wants to hammer the ubiquity home, releasing both the portable and the home version could be an option.

The codename NX is being tied to specific hardware mostly - so to me you make more sense. Nintendo would be silly not to launch a new generation of portable hardware within the next 1.5 years or so. If the console space isn't opened up well enough at that point, they might as well wait that one out. On the other hand, well, business could be better there as well for them...

I don't want to join endless discussion with people about the same topic, because I've learnt some people won't ever change their minds, but any gamer should be able to see by now that Nintendo doesn't give a **** about hardware technical capabilities since 2006 (or even 2004), so a hybrid is a totally logic concept. Plus, the hardware divisions became joined. Nintendo is already killing the Wii U, anyway.

I've only ever been to a 3D movie once in the past 5 years, but when I did, I ended up removing my glasses and watching the whole movie fuzzy, which wasn't pleasant. AMC had these tight-fitting glasses, and the only other option I had was to hold up my personal glasses over my face the whole movie (it didn't quite reach my nose). I'd sure hope I wouldn't have to do that to play Nintendo, but in order for that to work, Nintendo's device would have to be more like that gigantic and flimsy film I-MAX had me use back in the day, which still wasn't exactly ideal.

@erv:
I would guess that there are probably two things they consider when they release a new platform. They look at what the competition are doing and they look at what product they already have out. For a Nintendo portable there is no direct competition so in that respect they can launch whatever they want whenever they want. Because no matter what they do they'll probably be the only player on the market in that niche. Compare that to the home console space where there's Microsoft and Sony. If Nintendo was to release a home console they'd have to consider how it would sell alongside those competitors. Which makes things more complicated.

The second bit, their own hardware. In the portable space the 3DS is definitely at the end of its lifespan. There's a lot they could do with a serious upgrade in the portable space and there's not a lot more they can do with the 3DS. If they were to release a new portable I suspect that people would jump on it. Because it'd the first new dedicated portable gaming system in 5 years and probably the only one on the market. Compare that to the Wii U which still has quite a lot to offer. Sales aside this year on the Wii U we've got Splatoon and Super Mario Maker. Soon we're getting Xenoblade and then later still Zelda U. I suspect that if they were to release a new home console soon people would think "well ok, but why do I need to upgrade from the Wii U? Aren't you going to make some more Wii U games?". It's probably another year longer before the Wii U is at the point the 3DS is now.

@VanillaLake:
The thing is I think what you're saying is contradictory. I don't think it's going to be a "hybrid console" because I know Nintendo isn't interested in making expensive hardware. A hybrid console would have to be a portable first. That's literally the point of the idea isn't it? Well then it's not going to be something people will think replaces the Wii U unless it's more capable. And I don't see them making a portable that's that powerful. Not a chance.

It's a very real possibility that the console could feature a phone or tablet controller shell as well as something like the Samsung OR Gear (turning your phone into a HMD). I think that any design integrating tablets or phones into the system needs to be strictly optional. It could be a good option for WiiU compatibility, but I don't want to see Nintendo center the whole system design and new games around a controller shell for phones. I don't want to see Nintendo try for a second time to capture phone and tablet users. It failed with WiiU and it will fail again if it's the focus of the console.

They need the system to be defined as something new and something unique to NX. WiiU reused the same remote as the Wii and it suffered for lack of identity-- consumers didn't see it as something new in the least. The Wii was defined by its interface. Nintendo has to create a next gen remote to define their next console as a true heir to the Wii (minus the name).

Lol. The advantage is you cut out the optical drive and the 500GB HDD. So let's say that the neo-N64DD parts in the console cost about $50. That breaks down the cost of production of the hard disks to just the disks and amount of memory, and that makes them an in-between alternative to optical and flash (in cost and speed). If we don't need to be able to rewrite in modern games then why do we need a HDD in the first place? The ideas that Nintendo originally proposed with the N64DD have long since implemented into games with the current HDD paradigm.

Maybe the answer is that Nintendo needs a breakthrough in optical disks so we only need a small amount of flash (relative to 1TB or 500GB).

Except these days you can store about 30 regular sized modern games (15GB) on that 500GB HDD or about 200 on a drive that costs around $100US. When the N64 DD launched you could store 8 PS1 sized games (700MB) on a drive that cost about $200US in 1999 dollars. When the N64 launched make that 2 for $300US 1996 dollars. Worth also remembering that the N64 launch prices was only $200US compared to the PS4 which sold for $400US or the Wii U which sold for $300US. The situation we're in now is completely different to the situation when the N64DD was developed. What you're saying doesn't apply anymore.

Also I'd suggest this idea in rebuttal to your fantasy. Even if they went this "glorified zip-disk" route for some reason they'd still want to include a HDD. Because quite a few people will want to download their games or at the very least download demos and indie titles. Even if they skimped on internal storage they'd probably still go the Wii U route and put some flash in there supported by user installed mass storage. People aren't going to want to put in their "blank disk" to write stuff to, swapping out disks like it was the early 90s. Just think about what you're saying here because it would be a massive step backwards. So the idea that your idea would replace both the HDD (or flash) and the ODD is a fantasy. It would only replace the ODD. And given that fact how would the ability to write to the disks be an advantage? It wouldn't, you'd have internal storage!

What you're arguing is that a DD paradigm would be less expensive these days.

Also I'd suggest this idea in rebuttal to your fantasy. Even if they went this "glorified zip-disk" route for some reason they'd still want to include a HDD. Because quite a few people will want to download their games or at the very least download demos and indie titles. Even if they skimped on internal storage they'd probably still go the Wii U route and put some flash in there supported by user installed mass storage. People aren't going to want to put in their "blank disk" to write stuff to, swapping out disks like it was the early 90s. Just think about what you're saying here because it would be a massive step backwards. So the idea that your idea would replace both the HDD (or flash) and the ODD is a fantasy. It would only replace the ODD. And given that fact how would the ability to write to the disks be an advantage? It wouldn't, you'd have internal storage!

If they did use this design scheme, you would be able to put your downloaded titles on empty disks. It would work the same way as if they replaced everything with a flash storage card. Yes, it is going to back to more of the memory card design of the the late 90s (whether utilizing an optical drive or totally replacing it with flash cards) but as flash gets more inexpensive in the future, it's an inevitable shift. Having a writable medium that cuts out the optical drive and HDD makes more sense than forcing consumers to pay $400 for $270 worth of game hardware.

If you were going to design a system using removable disks or flash, then you don't need a large amount of built-in storage. You only need a small amount of internal flash memory for the OS and player data. All DLC and patches can be directly downloaded to the game card.

@BlueSkies: So you are saying, as someone that downloads all their titles, I would be force to buy these removable drives to install my games? Why would I want this? For the Wii U I bought one 2TB external hard drive and I never have to worry about space again. Now you want me to buy these special drives to install my games onto? Why?

EDIT: Also about the DLC and patch installing on the game's drive. How much extra space will companies be force to purchase for emergency patches that they don't know about in advance? Putting a size limit for each game in advance can kill opportunities for the game to expand further than the original scope. I really don't think this is going to happen. There are just so many things that depend on open space being available. With putting in size limits for each game you might run into a problem where some people just can't get all the content.

I still say it's an iPad. lol

I still think it is a micro-console.

No I was arguing that unlike in the N64 era a HDD wouldn't be half the cost of a very unaffordable system for only a couple of games. So before even getting to the other technical impracticalities (for the billionth time) you don't even need the one big difference. You don't need removable media that you can write to. Consoles already have mass storage. And they'll continue to have mass storage because digital distribution of games, patches, DLC and so on is a thing.

Again, it's not that much of the cost. At all. Even if you include the optical drive in these systems the entire storage setup is at most about 1/4 of the total price. And that's a cost that would be in the same ballpark of the 90's fantasy drive you want to replace it. I've said this repeatedly and you still don't believe me. I even posted the relative costs of HDDs over time in my previous post and you said I was supporting your argument! You're doing it again in this bit of text. It's nonsense.

However given that mass internal storage is there to stay what is the reason for it? Because I can't see any advantage at all. I can also see it being a more expensive way to do things and I've explained why repeatedly. Think about it, games would be more expensive on these entirely theoretical disks. If you were a big enough fan you'd want to buy a HDD anyway for demos and so on. So you're spending more on the games and got a HDD anyway..... for what?

I think the NX is a family of systems with a streamlined development environment, taking notes from Apple's iOS strategy and Valve's Steam game distribution strategy while adding that Nintendo flair to it to make it unique. Cross platform seems to be the main attraction. As a result, Nintendo can emphasize on a unified software ecosystem with an unified install base that will continuously grow.

no im just getting a Wii u this Christmas why a new console it hasn't even been that long

Everyone seemingly is going to be disappointed when it is just the unified OS and unified development architect that Nintendo has been talking about for the past two years.
Both console and handheld will run the OS and will be able ~90%+ of the code, assets and engines between them.
They should also share end up sharing ~90% of the overall libraries with a few exclusive games that take advantage of the hardware exclusive features.

This is what Apple does with OS X, iOS, Watch OS, and TV OS. You can essentially use ~85%+ of code, assets, engines etc... making it quite easy to develop across the board for each of their OSs.

Really there will still be a handheld with it's own hardware features and console with its own hardware features.
They will just run the same OS and stuff as mentioned in the top of my post.

@Xenocity:

So the one thing we know for sure is that it's hardware.