When do you think the "next-gen" consoles will be announced?

The bad economy (as far as "bad" means for North America) hasn't stopped an increase in electronics sales for the past year. No doubt, it's kept a lot of people from buying a new TV or what not, but as far as having to "recover first"...no.

It's a recycled Gamecube compared to a Gamecube. Same CPU, same GPU (about like a Radeon 8500, ) same RAM, just die shrunk and upclocked. The PS 2 had been out for a while and the Gamecube itself was just barely modern by the time it actually shipped, with fixed function hardware that wasn't even close to par for a Ge Force 4.

It does not have the same CPU and GPU! The Wii's CPU and GPU are twice as powerful as the Gamecube's. That's where the whole "Two Gamecube's duct taped together" meme comes from.

Historically speaking, I think “normal” for a console is approximately equal or slightly superior to contemporary arcade/PC hardware on launch. Price-wise, it's always been about $200-$300 (loss leading for the first 3 years) on launch.

Did you know that Nintendo has rarely been a loss leader? Even with the Gamecube, they only took a loss for about six months on it. Yes, consoles have been $200-$300 at launch, so let's look at the launch price of the three consoles.

• Wii: $250; Within Range.
• Xbox 360: $300-$400; Outside The Range Besides the Core SKU, but had to be shoddily assembled to do it.
• PS3: $500-$600; Far Outside The Range.

Both Wii and Xbox 360 are within the range that a console should be priced at. While Xbox 360 could be argued to be a typical console under these conditions, the PS3 most certainly can not. The PS3 at least went too far, too soon and paid the price for it.

Amazingly, the advantages and disadvantages of Wii, Xbox 360, and PS3 come from the philosophies and focus of the three companies.

• Nintendo is focused primarily on gameplay, so they are the ones to pioneer in the direction of controls at the expense of power.
• Microsoft is focused primarily on software and services, so they focus on access to software and services at the expense of reliable hardware.
• Sony is focused primarily on hardware, so they made a monster of a system at the expense of price.

edited 11th Oct '10 6:48:56 PM by GameGuruGG

The Wii's CPU is (so far as I'm aware) literally an identical die-shrink of the GCN's upclocked 50%. Public knowledge of the GPU is somewhat more nebulous, but it too appears to be just a die-shrunk 50% speedbump of the GCN's.

In the present Wii era, I often hear the claim that Nintendo's earlier consoles weren't loss leaders, but I always notice a distinct lack of hard proof to back up the frankly ludicrous idea that cutting edge NES, SNES, and N64 hardware all made an instant profit at sub-$300 launch prices. Let's be honest here: Game consoles are loss leaders for devkit-taxed games, that's how the industry has always worked.

"However, though it always avoids specifics, Nintendo has always aimed to profit on hardware from day one."

This is Gamasutra, a news and info site for game developers. One would think that in manners of money in the gaming industry, they of all sites would have their information straight. Apparently info of this appears to come from 2001's Spaceworld, which the Gaming Intelligence Agency had reported on back in the days of the Gamecube. There is your proof.

edited 13th Oct '10 4:44:28 PM by GameGuruGG

That's incredibly vague, and in both cases is either ambiguously paraphrased or not out of Nintendo's mouth. Also, no hard data. I remain unconvinced, but I admit I've been researching this for a while to clean up The Other Wiki and have also failed to come up with anything satisfying in either direction. In the absence of numbers, Occam's Razor is the best way.

Loss leader model new in game consoles. Only since Xbox, I think.

NES, SNES, N64 not cutting edge. PC always stronger.

I'm not seeing a problem with a desire to make money from Day One. Given the early expense of Playstation 3 and the Red Ring of Death for X-Box 360, I'm thinking the entire generation should've been postponed for at least a year from the start. Work out the gremlins, keep costs down, wait for the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray war to end, and so forth.

Well, Occam's Razor would work if we actually knew the standard practice of selling consoles from before the previous generation. There is serious doubt on if any console save the Saturn actually lost money during the generations prior. Hell, there appears to be doubt on if the Playstation 2 made money at launch or not. If you find any harder facts one way or the other than what I gave, I would definitely love to see them.

as it stands now, both companies have stated that they are doing well, and that they see no need to jump, the gun, as their still much life left to their systems. how true that is, is to be debated, personally i don't think the 360 has much left to offer IMHO. but i could be wrong, they might be able to pull something out of the hardware.

Nintendo's made some vague stirrings in the last few months that hint they're getting ready to unveil a follow-up to the Wii. They're already updating the DS. Likely, they're holding off announcements of a successor to their console so as not to distract from the 3DS. But as even their investors are pressing them for details on a follow-up and the abysmal state of third-party Wii titles, it's obvious Nintendo is prepping a follow up. And unlike Sony and Microsoft, they have nothing to lose for moving to the next iteration at this point in time.

But where can Nintendo go from here? Would a backwards-compatible Wii HD sell that well, even with a larger harddrive for more Virtual Console capacity?

I'm not going to speculate on what kind of new tech they want to try, though the way they talk, it's going to be an attempt to try something unusual much as motion control was. Hence I refuse to speculate on something else, since I fear sounding very silly when I inevitably can't come up with anything that doesn't sound cliche, like virtual reality.

In actuality, launching first would actually be beneficial to Nintendo. It would be beneficial because Nintendo is forcing Microsoft and Sony's hand when the two would instead prefer the generation to last a while. All Nintendo would have to do is make a console that would be worth $300 right now and a handheld that would be worth $200 right now and they would be on par with anything MS or Sony would throw at them unless MS and Sony are stupid enough to take a loss on hardware again.

Honestly, this is what I feel will happen. Microsoft and Sony, by launching their Kinect and Move platforms, have essentially committed to their hardware for several more years. Short of a Virtual Boy level flop, they're going to try and get their money back on the tech.

Nintendo doesn't have that problem. They just need to make sure their next console is doing something unique besides motion control. I assume it will be an HD console, but the costs of that option are much lower and the tech better understood, so it's not nearly as much of a risk. As long as that new idea is interesting, they've pretty much got the playing field open for a year or two.

And as I've said a few times - Nintendo isn't stupid. They appear to be aware of these trends. I also think they learned some lessons about ensuring stronger third-party ties from launch, so hopefully those issues will evaporate. I do know of many developers that wanted to work on the Wii, but couldn't justify the risk at this part of the console cycle. With a new console, it's essentially a reboot of the market where anything can happen. Assuming Nintendo follows through and makes sure the industry understands what to do with the tech this time - another complaint I heard about early problems with third-parties was that Nintendo essentially dropped this new and unique hardware idea on them and pretty much expected them to learn how use it on their own. Not really a good plan in the long-term. You need a few good third-parties that worked with you on the new tech and understand it inside and out to get the ball rolling.

I remember Nintendo saying that if they were to make a new console, it couldn't just be a switch to HD— there'd have to be a major change in order to justify it.

and what change is that? is there really any ground to break through at the moment? new format has been made (blu ray, and people are rapidly converting over to it) are we talking tech wise/innovation,new ip game to establish (something that has been desperately needed for nintendo)

Nintendo doesn't need new IPs. They got a ton created this generation already... Nintendogs, Brain Age, Wii Sports/Wii Fit.

edited 28th Oct '10 9:11:35 PM by GameGuruGG

But they don't count cuz they're CASUAL! They're just TECH DEMOS!

WE NEED MORE ORIGINAL THINGS!

this. just this. he's absolutely right. Nintendo has been relying on the past for too long, (to clarify im not saying to ditch their old ip's) they must be more inventive, go for something radical or whatever word it is you use, they took a chance with the wii, and it payed off big time.

why not try and create a new ip and take a chance with that, or create another genre of gaming like Sony did with it "play, create, share" for little big planet.

lets face it Nintendo hasn't had anything new in ages since Olimar.

^ Look at post 42. Just because it isn't an IP that interests you doesn't mean that it's not original.

... Do I honestly have to use the Sarcasm Mode pothole? I mean it was in all caps.

Anyways if you guys do want a new IP, one may be coming. Miyamoto mentioned it may be time for a new one, and also mentioned he's taken up swimming as a hobby, and is doing guidance counseling.

Edit: Looked on the Nintendo page. THIS is the list of all the IPs Nintendo has.

• Animal Crossing
• Brain Age
• Donkey Kong
  • Donkey Kong Country
• Duck Hunt
• Excite
• Fire Emblem
• F-Zero
• Game & Watch
• Kid Icarus
• Kirby
• The Legend of Zelda
  • Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland
• Metroid
  • Metroid Prime
  • Metroid: Other M
• Nintendogs
• Nintendo Wars
• Pikmin
• Punch Out!!
• Star Fox
• Super Mario Bros
  • Dr Mario
  • Mario Kart
  • Mario Party
  • Super Mario RPG
    • Mario and Luigi
    • Paper Mario
  • Yoshi's Island
    • Yoshi's Story
  • Wario Land
    • Wario Ware
• Super Smash Bros
• Wii Sports
  • Wii Sports Resort

edited 29th Oct '10 10:33:50 PM by Marioguy128

@ bit about whether pothole was necessary:

Yes, yes it is.

all franchises they have used in the past, nothing new (im not hating on them, i just think it would be in there best interest to invest in a new ip) seeing as they have plenty of money and incentive to do so.

they can actually afford to take these kinds of risk's don't you think?

Several of those… Aren't really Nintendo's.