Support NeoGAF

[nampad]

So much misinformation about the Vita in this thread over and over again.
-Vita made money on day 1 according to Scott Rhode (http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/w92058/e3-2011--lineup-interview). Still, no one is expecting Nintendo to go all out as Sony. Just look at the cheap tablets that are out there nowadays.
-Many Vita games are native res, including some of the graphically most impressive. Going by launch window titles or cheap ports is not a metric.

Whatever, tell yourself what you want so you can be be happy that Nintendo still uses old crappy tech.

 

[I Wanna Be The Guy]

bwahahahaha. Good one mate
Nintendo makes handhelds to be sold, not for them to rot in a cellar like Sony's Vita. The masses don't give a shit about a hi-res screen and top of the line specs. They buy their handhelds for the games

I'll never understand the idea that a handheld has to have shit hardware in order to have games. But sadly you're probably right. The masses don't give a shit. Vita had amazing hardware AND amazing software from day one but people didn't give a shit. It's very depressing.

With that said I think it's kinda ridiculous for people to think the next Ninty handheld wont at the very least match Vita in terms of specs. They can come out with a system with better specs than Vita but still have it be dated and relatively cheap.

 

[1st Course]

However, to the OP:
Do you really think the next Nintendo's hardware won't be more powerful than the Vita? Even if they use obsolete hardware it will be, just like a 3DS is better than a PSP. So it will have the same resolution probably. Or 480p at least. Not less.

Actually very possible I think. After 3DS launch disaster, I think they will try to play it as safe as possible. Really don't see them going with MSRP higher than $150. Hardware probably going to be from 2010-2011 with resolution no higher than 480p

 

[Pennywise83]

Killzone Mercenary runs at native resolution, by far the most demanding game on the system. We're a long way from Vita's launch year and dev teams targeting lower resolutions perhaps due to some hardware stuff not being locked down. Lot of ignorance about the system but, no surprise why.

Yeah, no one wants to exert effort if the sales potential is close to zero.

 

[blu]

What's your point? Mine certainly wasn't that it's a well-rounded device.

It was that a 1024x600 display, shitty SoC, battery and all the other parts are less than $35 in total. Including manufacturing.

Well, mine was that the device is hardly a gaming handheld. If you're just looking for a minimal BoM of a CPU with a screen, you could have one for even less than $35 ;p

 

[Durante]

His point is that mobile component prices are far cheaper than people are estimating and Nintendo can do pretty well budgeting for a system with a bill of materials at ~100, not that we should be amazed at how cheap shitty shit is.

Exactly.

Well, mine was that the device is hardly a gaming handheld. If you're just looking for a minimal BoM of a CPU with a screen, you could have one for even less than $35 ;p

Reductio ad absurdum. Nice. I expected better from you, but your maternal instincts always seem to flare up when Nintendo is involved

 

[Cute Dragon Here]

His point is that mobile component prices are far cheaper than people are estimating and Nintendo can do pretty well budgeting for a system with a bill of materials at ~100, not that we should be amazed at how cheap shitty shit is.

Exactly.

Thanks for explaining. At some times it keeps making me wonder if they'll try to skimp on things the next time around.

Then again, 3DS price drop = loss then. You never know.

 

[nampad]

Exactly.

Doesn't matter, they will always find a reason why that isn't a good example blablabla. Someone else tried pages ago and there was always a reason to nag. Meanwhile, we are talking about a device probably releasing in 2016.

 

[Altima]

I think Nintendo is bigger than some smartphone companies.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I'll never understand the idea that a handheld has to have shit hardware in order to have games. But sadly you're probably right. The masses don't give a shit. Vita had amazing hardware AND amazing software from day one but people didn't give a shit. It's very depressing.

With that said I think it's kinda ridiculous for people to think the next Ninty handheld wont at the very least match Vita in terms of specs. They can come out with a system with better specs than Vita but still have it be dated and relatively cheap.

For a logical company that is correct, but with Nintendo you have to worry about them putting a bunch of junk in the handheld that not only hurts the gameplay experience but also makes it more expensive.

 

[Yasumi]

$250 != $250+$100, customers aren't that stupid. Or are they?

Why include the cost for the largest Vita memory card available, but exclude that cost for the 3DS? You can play physicals just fine with a 4GB, as you can with the 3DS.

 

[GhostTrick]

Doesn't matter, they will always find a reason why that isn't a good example blablabla. Someone else tried pages ago and there was always a reason to nag. Meanwhile, we are talking about a device probably releasing in 2016.

Meanwhile, by 2016, you're still looking on the same problems. Bandwith, diminishing returns of higher resolutions, waste of power, different graphical expectations.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Nintendo will continue the same path they have been on for years, come out with cheap hardware with minimal revisions every year and let the software speak for itself. Unless they change the whole staff at Nintendo headquarters it will be status quo.

 

[blu]

Reductio ad absurdum. Nice. I expected better from you, but your maternal instincts always seem to flare up when Nintendo is involved

Paternal, mind you. But otherwise, yes - I'd rather see nintendo not do stupid things when it comes to my second-favorite pastime, and I'm willing to share with fellow gaffers why nintendo should not be doing stupid things ; )

Seriously, though, your original argument was:

'See, you could have something with a relatively-high res screen for peanuts.'

My response was perfectly natural:

'Sure, as long as that something is not meant to play proper games and last 5 years, at that.'

I did sway into reductio ad absurdum, though, I give you that ; )

 

[Altima]

It will be great if Nintendo come up with something that can replace my ipad mini.

- modern design
- good browser
- support various language
- support social network app and messenger

I think that is enough to replace my ipad mini in my daily day life.

 

[Durante]

Seriously, though, your original argument was:

'See, you could have something with a relative-high res screen for peanuts.'

My response was perfectly natural:

'Sure, as long as that something is not meant to play proper games and last 5 years, at that.'

The point is that the "peanuts" in my original argument were less than 1/3rd of where most people would put Nintendo's budget for a handheld. So it should be perfectly possible to get the other parts up to scratch with that kind of headroom.

Personally, I wouldn't even want them to go particularly high-res on the screen, I'd rather have a good screen. But that will never happen, not enough people care about that and you can't even sell it as well as resolution. I still find it fascinating that Sony ever made the OLED Vita.

 

[GhostTrick]

The point is that the "peanuts" in my original argument were less than 1/3rd of where most people would put Nintendo's budget for a handheld. So it should be perfectly possible to get the other parts up to scratch with that kind of headroom.

Personally, I wouldn't even want them to go particularly high-res on the screen, I'd rather have a good screen. But that will never happen, not enough people care about that and you can't even sell it as well as resolution. I still find it fascinating that Sony ever made the OLED Vita.

I see your point, but then again, I also agree that price isn't an issue in 2017 for hi res screen. Although, power still remains one.

 

[Grief.exe]

It all hinges on whether Nintendo drops 3D or not. The use of 3D requires a fairly large hardware overhead, if Nintendo drops it they will be able to provide a higher resolution screen.

 

[1st Course]

Just in case people don't know:

The 3DS is based on ARM11 which can be found in phones from 2006-2007

3DS has 128MB ram which comparable to phones from 2007

All that and yet it was Nintendo most expensive handheld to date was responsible for the company posting first loss ever. People looking at today phones and thinking Nintendo can match Moto G are expecting way too much if you ask me.

 

[Y2Kev]

I see your point, but then again, I also agree that price isn't an issue in 2017 for hi res screen. Although, power still remains one.

But again, I don't see any reasonable people asking for 1440p. I think it's similarly extreme to go with 480p. I think 720p is really a very happy medium and should be reasonably drivable by affordable mobile chipsets in late 2016.

At some point, a resolution that low will hamper Nintendo's ability to build lifestyle apps and such, which you know they will want to do.

I think they might want to consider scalability from a standard Android phone resolution so they can have developers easily port across their stuff.

 

[Portugeezer]

Give me a 4" 480p screen for their next handheld and I am happy. As long as games run at native resolution it should look fine, some Vita games ran lower than 480p lol.

Just in case people don't know:

The 3DS is based on ARM11 which can be found in phones from 2006-2007

3DS has 128MB ram which comparable to phones from 2007

All that and yet it was Nintendo most expensive handheld to date was responsible for the company posting first loss ever. People looking at today phones and thinking Nintendo can match Moto G are expecting way too much if you ask me.

What about the 3D display?

 

[GhostTrick]

Just in case people don't know:

The 3DS is based on ARM11 which can be found in phones from 2006-2007

3DS has 128MB ram which comparable to phones from 2007

All that and yet it was Nintendo most expensive handheld to date was responsible for the company posting first loss ever. People looking at today phones and thinking Nintendo can match Moto G are expecting way too much if you ask me.

To be honest, 3DS conception happened before the smartphone boom, which is responsible for the ARM boom and the boost in performance of their chipset.
When 3DS was announced, ARM11 was just replaced by Cortex A8, which was the following of ARM11.
Between DS, which used ARM9 and 3DS, which used ARM11, you had 2 ARM CPU released: ARM11 et Cortex A8.
Between 3DS and next Nintendo handheld, you had 4 to 5 new generation ARM CPU:
Cortex A8, Cortax A9, Cortex A15, Cortex A57 and Cortex A72. And that's without talking about additional releases for mid tier devices, such as Cortex A7, Cortex A12, Cortex A17 and Cortex A53.

But again, I don't see any reasonable people asking for 1440p. I think it's similarly extreme to go with 480p. I think 720p is really a very happy medium and should be reasonably drivable by affordable mobile chipsets in late 2016.

At some point, a resolution that low will hamper Nintendo's ability to build lifestyle apps and such, which you know they will want to do.

I think they might want to consider scalability from a standard Android phone resolution so they can have developers easily port across their stuff.

To be fair, I see more gain for 480p over 1440p. Then again, 480p to 720p is twice more pixels to draw... which is questionnable for the gain in IQ for a 5 inch screen. But yes, 720p should be pretty much doable, the same way it's doable on Wii U. Although, I think 540p is a sweeter spot.
Then again, it's not only a price problem, but also a performance and bandwith one.
Just to put it simple: Tegra K1, in the Shield Tablet, runs Trine 2 at 1024x768 resolution, with a slightly worse framerate than PS360 version and slightly worse graphics.
We're talking about the most powerful SoC on the market right now.

 

[Cute Dragon Here]

Hmm...

My gut feeling says that at the next Nintendo handheld will come with a 480p display, minimum. Maybe 720p, or even 768p if they end up having to use that (or intend to keep the 15:9 ratio). I'm leaning towards 720p a lot - at that point 720p displays should be just right in terms of costs and performance.

Sometimes I do wonder if they bottom screen will stay 4:3. 4:3 for the bottom screen seems nice enough given what I'm seeing on my 3DS XL. The buttons and stuff have to go somewhere, after all.

I'd be shocked if they went beyond 768p, though.

(Just make sure the devs aren't allowed to pick a resolution that doesn't scale up cleanly...I can dream, right?)

 

[deadlast]

Thanks for making this thread op. Lots of info in it.
Personally I think the next Nintendo handheld will be 720p. That's because I think Nintendo wants to do cross play between their next console and handheld. So games need to scale. And I think scaling a game between 720 and 1080 would be easier. I could be completely wrong here.

 

[shiyrley]

Actually very possible I think. After 3DS launch disaster, I think they will try to play it as safe as possible. Really don't see them going with MSRP higher than $150. Hardware probably going to be from 2010-2011 with resolution no higher than 480p

You don't get it. If they release the console in let's say 2017 or even 2016, a hardware sightly more powerful than Vita's is already playing very safe

 

[family_guy]

If it were any other company people would expect more. Nintendo? It seems like the mantra of their fans is, "We're okay if you set the bar low. We'll buy it anyway."

 

[staticneuron]

Man all these quotes and they still don't refute what I said. Which was simply that Uncharted GA runs subnative res and wasn't really a PS3 port or using ND's engine.

I never said they used ND engine but it is hard to say that it wasn't a down port either. They didn't have final hardware and specs for most of the development of the game so they were running on assumptions and it seems as if they still over estimated what they could do as mentioned in their post mortem. If you read all those quotes you would see why it is sketchy to say they developed it for vita natively when they didn't have final specs nor final hardware for the majority of development and were running on assumptions using a PS3 engine.

Nintendo's engineering is all about balance and efficiency. 3DS actually got a bit of a spec bump so it could manage 3D display at decent framerates. And given no 3DS games yet run subnative res, I'd say they hit their target with 3DS performance versus display.

If their target included it being native res then it wouldn't matter. And that is the point I am getting at. Any title whose target is to hit native res, will hit native res because that is their goal. The games on the Vita that do not hit native res are most likely because native res was not main target but secondary goal if it was even a goal at all.

Again you design a game "for" the hardware not the other way around.

Non-native resolution games are a huge issue on Vita, but that's mostly because of stupid developer decisions (just like on any other platform I'd argue). For example, you simply shouldn't use deferred shading on Vita.

That is a way of putting it. Normally I try to be nicer to devs.

The Vita real cost was hidden by mandatory memory card. Of course you dont lose money when your handheld has to be bought with overpriced memory cards.

This only makes sense.... if you never seen a sony product before. In every almost every Sony device, they tend to require media they had a hand in developing. People are ok with the dominant media they had a hand in creating, like 3.5 Floppy, CD's DVD's and Blu Rays. But then it is idiotic sony when talking about Beta, MD, UMD, MSPD, Vita Memory cards and many others. Sony did what they always did, I highly doubt;t this had to do with price and had more to do with control.

 

[Alienous]

SD -> 3D -> ... SD?

 

[Delusibeta]

ITT: Nintendo fanboys trying to defend an indefensible argument.

Hell, I got a tablet a couple years ago with a 720p screen for £60, and it still had a longer battery life than a 3DS in Sleep Mode. With the advances of technology, Nintendo will have absolutely no trouble making something that's as technically comparable to the Vita for £200 in a couple years' time.

 

[Fbh]

I know it's not a very valid comparison but..... My cell phone has a 720p screen which looks a whole lot nicer than the 3DS, pretty good battery life on a smaller bettery than what you could fit inside a handheld console, a 1,2 Mhz Quad core CPU.... and I paid less for it than for my 3DS.

So I'm sure that if they really wanted, developing a handheld console with a 720p screen and selling it for $250 shouldn't be THAT hard.

As for people saying that development costs would go up.... it really comes down to what Nintendo want to do with the system. Even 3DS style games with a 3DS style budget would look a whole lot nicer in HD

 

[Darius]

If it were any other company people would expect more. Nintendo? It seems like the mantra of their fans is, "We're okay if you set the bar low. We'll buy it anyway."

Can´t be worse than the transition from PS3-like games or bust to look! at all these "great" outdated smartphone ports.


In general what gets most often ignored is the added costs of a second screen and the glassless 3D screen which was and still is quite unique in the market and not exactly produced in mass like your other generic screens, which likely adds up to the cost. Seeing how Nintendo started to make big fiscal year losses for years largely in part due to 3DSs pricecut, it´s is fair to say that it wasn´t exactly overpriced.

 

[nampad]

Actually very possible I think. After 3DS launch disaster, I think they will try to play it as safe as possible. Really don't see them going with MSRP higher than $150. Hardware probably going to be from 2010-2011 with resolution no higher than 480p

I think $150 is lowballing it a lot. The n3DS is introduced at an higher MSRP.
I think $199 is the sweet spot for them.

 

[blu]

The point is that the "peanuts" in my original argument were less than 1/3rd of where most people would put Nintendo's budget for a handheld. So it should be perfectly possible to get the other parts up to scratch with that kind of headroom.

That really depends on the headroom. Apparently you assume the headroom to be something along 35 -> 120, whereas we actually don't know what the headroom is. I'm sure you acknowledge that the device from your example could be of unpalatable quality, with a screen of ridiculous view angles and its SoC, as humble as it is, could be sucking the juice out of that battery within a couple of hours.

Let's try to do some apples to apples - let's move entirely to phone territory, as there we have plenty of material. Consider this example:

A modern smartphone (Q3/2014) - Intex Cloud FX, goes for $35. It's a FirefoxOS device, so the sw side of the product goes as low-cost as physically possible. That device is even listed in the official list of 2014 FirefoxOS devices. Apropos, my favorite there is the Alcatel Fire E. It currently can be had for $90 (80 eur at amazon.de). FYI, it holds that status with me not because it's the top-of-the-line FirefoxOS device, but because it's a very adequate phone, by my spartan phone standards (for the record, my daily mobile phone is a dumbphone). So, imagine we're trying to form a basis of reference for the cost of FirefoxOS phones circa 2014. We are looking for a low viable cost. Would you go for the $35 device, as represented by the Intex Cloud FX, or for the $90 device, in the shape of the Alcatel Fire E? Or perhaps you'd take the Alcatel entry model - Fire C (* $80 at amazon.de)?

Personally, I wouldn't even want them to go particularly high-res on the screen, I'd rather have a good screen. But that will never happen, not enough people care about that and you can't even sell it as well as resolution. I still find it fascinating that Sony ever made the OLED Vita.

I share your views there - the wiiU pad's screen was the first time in my gaming career I was happy with the quality of a nintendo screen.

 

[GhostTrick]

ITT: Nintendo fanboys trying to defend an indefensible argument.

Hell, I got a tablet a couple years ago with a 720p screen for £60, and it still had a longer battery life than a 3DS in Sleep Mode. With the advances of technology, Nintendo will have absolutely no trouble making something that's as technically comparable to the Vita for £200 in a couple years' time.

Sheesh, I'm sure you took time to read all the arguments around and such, right buddy ?
I'll put it straight and simple for you.
Here's Shield Tablet, a 239£ tablet with a Tegra K1 SoC, the most powerful available on the market right now. It has a 1920x1200 screen.

Trine 2, an indie title release on PS3 and 360 has been released on Shield Tablet. You would think that it would be able to play an indie title at native resolution, right ?
Wrong. It runs at 30FPS and slightly lower, at 1024x768.
Yes, it runs slightly worse than PS3 and 360 versions.
It doesn't even run at 720p.

 

[staticneuron]

Sheesh, I'm sure you took time to read all the arguments around and such, right buddy ?
I'll put it straight and simple for you.
Here's Shield Tablet, a 239£ tablet with a Tegra K1 SoC, the most powerful available on the market right now. It has a 1920x1200 screen.

Trine 2, an indie title release on PS3 and 360 has been released on Shield Tablet. You would think that it would be able to play an indie title at native resolution, right ?
Wrong. It runs at 30FPS and slightly lower, at 1024x768.
Yes, it runs slightly worse than PS3 and 360 versions.
It doesn't even run at 720p.

And again...

If their target included it being native res then it wouldn't matter. And that is the point I am getting at. Any title whose target is to hit native res, will hit native res because that is their goal.

Again you design a game "for" the hardware not the other way around.

and

So there is no reason NOT to have the next nintendo console with HD graphics because they seem to spend even more time polishing their big hits and they choose to opt for art and presentation over pushing the technical envelope. I believe not only can nintendo make high resolution games but do so with such a strong and unique look that most would be hard pressed to describe it as ugly.

So bringing in a port to the discussion is disingenuous. Because the goal of a port is to get the game running on another hardware, not to hit native res. Also the title was not designed for the portable handheld. And Nintendo is one of the best and most unique devs out there, so they wouldn't "port" a game and the realign their goals would be whatever they want to. In addition to all of this, just because a console has a higher resolution screen doesn't mean devs are required to hit that. Again some devs will use that as an option and it is subjective on if it is a good idea or not.

 

[GhostTrick]

And again...




and



So bringing in a port to the discussion is disingenuous. Because the goal of a port is to get the game running on another hardware, not to hit native res. Also the title was not designed for the portable handheld. And Nintendo is one of the best and most unique devs out there, so they wouldn't "port" a game and the realign their goals would be whatever they want to. In addition to all of this, just because a console has a higher resolution screen doesn't mean devs are required to hit that. Again some devs will use that as an option and it is subjective on if it is a good idea or not.

In 2016/2017, I think people would expect something on par or slightly more powerful than PS360 for a handheld. At least, in Nintendo's scheme.
But sure, let's not talk about port. You have a lot of games not running at native res because of such troubles. Being on Vita or Tablets.
And it's not like Trine 2 was the most demanding game last gen...

 

[……forgetit]

The Vita was losing money at launch, and was likely losing money when they cut its price too. The memory card shit probably helps in that regard, but the system itself was certainly taking a loss, which Sony themselves admitted years ago. Having said that, Vita was quite a high spec device at the time, Nintendo doesn't need to push that far.

Regardless this is a difficult discussion to have when we pretty much have no idea what their future plans could be. With the WiiU in the shitter, and the 3DS on track to be one of their worst selling handhelds, it's all pretty up in the air at the moment.

Thing us the mobile boom really hit after the vita. It nay have been high spec at the time but now it's insanely under powered. People in this thread who think Nintendo will fly under vita power are insane.

 

[Cheeseman Battitude]

The information on this page shows the increase in resolution of the Nintendo handhelds has been modest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nintendo_portable_consoles

So I would imagine two 480p screens or one 540p screen depending on what sort of console it is.

 

[staticneuron]

In 2016/2017, I think people would expect something on par or slightly more powerful than PS360 for a handheld. At least, in Nintendo's scheme.
But sure, let's not talk about port. You have a lot of games not running at native res because of such troubles. Being on Vita or Tablets.

Aside from the fact that this is not true, this also goes back to the points I repeated in this thread. Titles don't have this trouble at all. It is either a port we are talking about or the dev made the choice not to make a locked native res requirement. For whatever trade off or reason they made, resolution most likely wasn't a priority.

 

[LeleSocho]

Just wondering, people here assume that 960x544 (PSVita's resolution) is an HD resolution? Because it's not.

 

[……forgetit]

The information on this page shows the increase in resolution of the Nintendo handhelds has been modest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nintendo_portable_consoles

So I would imagine two 480p screens or one 540p screen depending on what sort of console it is.

Sure, this would make sense if Nintendo decided to ignore everything happening in the portable space outside of their own handhelds. I mean say what you want about the Wii U, it was at least made with some understanding of what's popular at the time. Going below 540p would be a horrible idea.

 

[……forgetit]

Just wondering, people here assume that 960x544 (PSVita's resolution) is an HD resolution? Because it's not.

For awhile qHD was considered the minimum you could go and call a portable HD. Sure it's not technically an HD resolution, bit it was considered in on portable devices if I remember correctly.

 

[AerialAir]

Sure, this would make sense if Nintendo decided to ignore everything happening in the portable space outside of their own handhelds. I mean say what you want about the Wii U, it was at least made with some understanding of what's popular at the time. Going below 540p would be a horrible idea.

Just, why? Nintendo never followed trends, and all of their handhelds (aside from the hideous VB) were incredibly successful. The majority of the people who buy the systems couldn't care less about the resolution, they just want a good library of games and a little improvement in the specs. I think 480p will be the top screen's res.

 

[Raide]

New home system should basically be a docking station for the new handheld. Just combine the two together and make the same games that work across both and give people the option of a handheld system and then just dock it when you get home to play couch co-op games.

They are splitting their userbase too much and they should be working to unite them.

 

[thomasmahler]

I really couldn't care less what resolution their next device has, but I do expect a nice performance bump that should bring it up at least to Vita standards.

Developers should just use the hardware that's out there as a canvas and then it's on them to create something amazing looking - whether the display has a few pixels more or less... who cares? I'm sure we'll see some amazing looking games on future handhelds, whether it's 1080p or not.

 

[……forgetit]

Just, why? Nintendo never followed trends, and all of their handhelds (aside from the hideous VB) were incredibly successful. The majority of the people who buy the systems couldn't care less about the resolution, they just want a good library of games and a little improvement in the specs. I think 480p will be the top screen's res.

Well that's not entirely true, they followed trends with the GameCube and the Wii U is an HD system. When the 3DS came out the resolution wasn't "that bad," now it's fucking awful. The thing us, when this next handheld comes out 540p won't be that bad, but 480 would still be horrible. Also to say that people who buy these don't care is nuts considering everyone in this thread is probably planning on buying one.

 

[nampad]

Sheesh, I'm sure you took time to read all the arguments around and such, right buddy ?
I'll put it straight and simple for you.
Here's Shield Tablet, a 239£ tablet with a Tegra K1 SoC, the most powerful available on the market right now. It has a 1920x1200 screen.

Trine 2, an indie title release on PS3 and 360 has been released on Shield Tablet. You would think that it would be able to play an indie title at native resolution, right ?
Wrong. It runs at 30FPS and slightly lower, at 1024x768.
Yes, it runs slightly worse than PS3 and 360 versions.
It doesn't even run at 720p.

The Xiami MiPad has the same SoC and a 2,048 x 1,536 screen and launched for about $240. You should know that because it is mentioned in the same article you linked.
Considering there is some more overhead in Android game development compared to a dedicated gaming handheld, a 720p screen in the new handheld isn't as impossible as you make it out to be.

 

[……forgetit]

New home system should basically be a docking station for the new handheld. Just combine the two together and make the same games that work across both and give people the option of a handheld system and then just dock it when you get home to play couch co-op games.

They are splitting their userbase too much and they should be working to unite them.

This really isn't going to happen unless you want the new system to have sub-wii u graphics.

 

[Raide]

This really isn't going yo happen unless you want the new system to have sub-wii u graphics.

Well, their next handheld just being Wii-U would actually be a nice step up for a handheld device. Something Bayonetta 2 standard on handheld would be awesome.

I was just thinking of a way that they could improve their fortunes on the home console front without splitting their handheld community up.


Their next home system is probably going to be a refined Wii-U with more RAM in it. Which based upon the fortunes of the Wii-U, could be coming sooner than people think.

 

[outunderthestars]

Well, their next handheld just being Wii-U would actually be a nice step up for a handheld device. Something Bayonetta 2 standard on handheld would be awesome.

I was just thinking of a way that they could improve their fortunes on the home console front without splitting their handheld community up.


Their next home system is probably going to be a refined Wii-U with more RAM in it. Which based upon the fortunes of the Wii-U, could be coming sooner than people think.

There is no way in hell that their next console will be based on the Wii U. I don't see either the tablet controller or Wii Remotes coming back.