It's possible that they are making two entirely seperate platforms. That they are only changing things internally to make porting easier, that there will be no notable consequences for the consumer.
But if that's the case wtf are we referring to both systems with the same name?! Because they both might use ARM? Who cares? Because they might share a few ports? again?
Future directs will probably be announced with text to speech via Miis in Miitomo.
Did Nintendo ever refer to a handheld as NX, though? I thought that was something the media and analysts just ran with. I suppose it's conceivable that the two systems aren't both internally known as NX. That would seem to go against my interpretation of Iwata's statement about systems being siblings, though. It seems interpretation of that statement is becoming more polarizing. On the one hand, we have the KingSnake line of thought that says this means shared games across platforms. Then there is the Fourth Storm line of thought that says games will mostly be unique to hardware. I fall into the former group. I hope Nintendo does too. I'll get a bit more into my why's below....
I don't know why not. I'm describing a decent percentage of indie games and all VC as shared between console and HH. If they did that and the next 3D Mario released in two versions, with the same mechanics but unique levels in each, with the user getting a discount on one if having purchased the other, that wouldn't be enough to lure you in?
...What about if they launched with Metroid?
They could launch with Metroid, F-Zero, Zelda, and 3D Mario and if it is a $300 system with games you cannot play on the handheld I think Nintendo will have settled on a half measure that is just asking for trouble. They know some things for sure now that they didn't know when they thought Wii U could be a hit:
1) western third parties will not be eager yi develop for their console. They cannot rely on this support as they historically have to fill in droughts. There won't be an exclusive Rayman game in the launch window that fans will plan to buy during a drought.
2) a second screen on a console means little to nothing to fans. The Wii U sales speak to this.
3) the presence of high quality IPs and traditional big sellers alone will by no means guarantee console sales. While such games were a big hit on 3DS, almost no such successes came to Wii U. Those that were relatively highly successful sold extremely well in Japan and impressively in NA. And pretty poorly in EU.
4) by the same token, multiplats that are not family friendly hold little appeal for Wii U owners.
Nintendo is starting from the ground up in a sense. If destiny and GTA came to NX, PS/X gamers are still likelier to get those kinds of games on their primary platform that their friends have and for which they are accustomed to getting those sorts of games on. So I don't believe western third party major titles will accomplish much necessarily. Most Wii and DS gamers have lost interest in Nintendo or in gaming in general and have moved on to PC, PS/X or smartphone gaming. At the same time, I think the right game or hook at the right price could draw some of those players back in.
This... doesn't make much sense to me.
The markets for handheld and home gaming systems are plainly two different markets.
If those are both markets you're interested in then that's cool, but by the same logic you should be dropping Sony because they are putting a lot of effort into VR right now, or MS becuase of their Xbox/Mobile/PC/etc. split.
No offense intended, but I don't agree with your premise insofar as Nintendo is concerned. As recently as the Wii and DS days, handheld and console offered wildly different sizes and aesthetics of experiences. This gen, though, we have a Nintendo console offering a dual screen semi-portable experience with games exceptionally similar to those on the handheld, which offers more of a console-like experience than ever before. Additionally, I strongly believe Nintendo gamers are a demographic of their own, eager to buy a handheld and console at the right price if they offer compelling ways to play (at the least, portability vs. HDTV gaming), and if they are the same games available across both systems I definitely don't see that cannibalizing sales any more than MK7/8, SSB4 and 3DL/3DW did. (Which I think is a moderate effect. For the latter at least I saw a lot of gamers who said "eh it's just a 3DS up-port and level pack.")
If the same game is available across both systems, all that does is raise the library and appeal for both systems. Otherwise you're in the same half measure situation we have now wherein the handheld offers conaole-like experience and as the gap between what a handheld and console can offer grows smaller and less noticeable, the argument for offering different games on each--especially completely different versions of similar games--becomes less compelling. And if you're going to make the gamer buy practically the same game twice for nearly every game and across both platforms, that wouldn't seem to foster much appreciation from the player. Especially since Nintendo gamers and brand name fans in general have an emotional attachment to their chosen brand in many cases that not every product is as lucky to have.
Paying twice for the same-ish game is one of the reasons Wii U didn't find enough audience among the 3ds owners. Developing different levels for different hardware seems like a nice way to droughts.
I agree. (Please see above.) I don't see any more harm in some extra level bonus any more than locking similar content behind amiibos, at least to the extent that this isn't seen as massive content one platform holder is missing out on.
Yet Smash sales for Wii U and 3DS didn't seem to cannibalize each other all that much. Ditto w/ 3D Land and 3D World (the latter of which released a good 2 years after the former, so that kind of killed some of the excitement, even though the game exceeded the expectations of many naysayers). The one instance I can think of is NSMB2/U, which may have just been franchise fatigue and other issues getting in the way.
Plus, we know that Nintendo are planning discounts based on gameplay and recommendations in addition to purchase-based discounts. Capcom is implementing a similar system in Street Fighter V, so it's possible that heavy users could get additional versions for very cheap or even free.
Please see my rambling post up above. I do like the idea of cheaper cross-play options but I'm a bit concerned it would make things overly complicated for the lay player. Regardless, this is already offered to an extent with Mario vs. DK and I'm unsure how successful that experiment was for Nintendo. I will say just VC and indie cross-play alone seems insufficient to what Nintendo could offer if truly looking to innovate in the hardware space. A PS3/Vita situation was not enough to get players interested in the Vita, and by the time it was in full swing it was coming from a position where the console was much more popular than the handheld, and with Nintendo it's the other way around right now, which is all the more reason to make the console as appealing as possible and same with the handheld.
Wii U had other issues that were much greater than its games. Nothing out there would have been able to save Wii U under any circumstance. Besides, you can make the same argument with MKWii vs MK7, they're very similar games, so why bother purchasing a 3DS for same-ish games? The 3DS was an attractive platform with a diverse library including 3rd party games (to some extent), Wii U wasn't and has never been.
I don't think NX was ever referred to as multiple systems officially by Nintendo. NX may very well be just the codename for one game machine and nothing else. There have been rumors claiming there to be a "home Console" and a "portable unit", but it was never official. I honestly don't know why some people are referring it as multiple machines (I think I have too, just to fit in
). We'll soon see I guess.
I am wondering about your second point also. I do wonder if Nintendo ever did refer to BX as a portable. With that said, as I mentioned above, future systems were referred to as siblings, which I think is where some of this speculation comes from. As to Wii U and its failures, I agree that with the name, price and tablet controller, not much was going to readily save it otherwise.
If you look at SSB sales on Wii U compared to MK8 or even Splatoon, you could say that the potential for it should have been bigger.
I said "one of the reasons", not that Wii U could have been saved. MK 7 came 3 years after MK Wii, it's like the normal release schedule for Nintendo games sequels. Plus 3ds was the new HW vs. dying Wii.
My opinion is that Nintendo should reward the owners of more than 1 Nintendo hardware rather than punish them and save time and cost on developing by not working in parallel on two different version of the same game and rather use the additional levels as a DLC to be sold to the extended install base of the game, if they have the resources for it. I don't want to see again the droughts from Wii U and having different versions for the biggest games sounds like the recipe for that to happen again.
Again, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here. This is what I'm seeing as a large part of the solution to Nintendo's current problems as well.
