Nintendo HD Has the Next-Gen Console War Begun?

[admin]

After poor 2011 sales reports for Wii, Nintendo hinted at a price drop for the console. A tweet here and a blog-post there and suddenly the gaming community has come unglued with rumors about a new Nintendo game console. It's said to have more power than a locomotive and be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Forget 3D, this one has X-ray eyes! Some are already calling it Nintendo HD after the most conspicuous feature missing from Wii. Nintendo itself is staying mute, so let's sort out the rumors and pre-E3 Expo speculation.

Discuss "Nintendo HD Has the Next-Gen Console War Begun?" here. Read the article.

 

[kevon27]

The real new kings of gaming are Apple and Android.

 

[ratso]

sorry, not even close. there really is no difference between angry birds and the wii games - fun little "party" games, social diversions, but not the future (and certainly not the core of gaming). another fad that will die soon.

 

[GlocksRock]

I just breathed new life into my wii by modding it, so much better to be able to load games right off a hard drive and play old console games via the emulators. I'm in no big rush to get a new console anytime soon, but I am curious to see what Ninetendo will come out with for their next gen Wii.

 

[its phillip]

I'll probably mod mine, I hardly ever use it anyway. I do hope the next gen wii has an actual hard drive though. It would be nice if they provided a way for you to transfer your virtual console/wii downloads to the new machine but they probably won't. When I bought a new wii and sold my old one, I would have had to mail them both to nintendo for them to transfer my stuff :/

 

[FirstReflection]

Based on the rumors (touch screen, dual analogue sticks, sensor bar), my feeling is that Nintendo is attempting to take on several competitors all at once.

The 6" touch screen controller rumors scream to me that Nintendo wants to basically go head-to-head with iPad gaming. I think the idea here is to offer "casual" iPad-type games that can play on just the controller (no TV needed). The big hook is that the Project-Cafe controller will also offer physical controls (analogue sticks, buttons AND the touch screen), which is something that a lot of people want for iPad and iPhone games.

Then the system itself will likely be around the same power as a PS3. If the system can stream images to the 6" screen controller, that would allow Nintendo to compete head-to-head with Sony's NGP (so long as you stay at home of course).

Finally, as a home console connected to a HDTV, it could offer PS3-level graphics, but also have the 6" controller screen as a standard and included option. Nintendo is no stranger to trying to "tether" their portable system to their home system (remember the GBA-to-Gamecube cable?), but now, it wouldn't be an optional - and therefore poorly supported - peripheral.

The rumors of a sensor bar could be one of two things IMO. I COULD be a direct Kinect competitor, but I actually just think it'll be for Wii backwards compatibility. Wii sales might be dropping, but it was still a hugely popular console with many, many owners. I think it only makes sense that Project-Cafe will be backwards compatible. I think Nintendo will simply allow you to use your existing Wii controllers, which might also allow HD Project-Cafe games to use Wii controls if a developer still wants motion control. It's kind of like how you could still plug a Gamecube controller into the Wii and some Wii games even used that Gamecube controller.

My $0.02 anyway

 

[MinusTheBear]

I could care less about what Nintendo does next gen. They cater to casual gamers and children and I HATE motion sensing controllers. If Microsoft comes out with a more powerful console that developers find easier to develop games on than the cell (PS3), they will get my money. MS has nailed the controller. With Kinect being separate, I don't have to worry about that crap raising costs for the next gen console.

 

[Wayde Robson]

I could care less about what Nintendo does next gen. They cater to casual gamers and children and I HATE motion sensing controllers. If Microsoft comes out with a more powerful console that developers find easier to develop games on than the cell (PS3), they will get my money. MS has nailed the controller. With Kinect being separate, I don't have to worry about that crap raising costs for the next gen console.

Minus, I gotta tell ya, I was with you for a long time.

I have PS3 and recently got Move (ahem, for my son... for his birthday).

I am using the Move controllers for Killzone3 with the assault rifle thingy... OMH, after a bit of working with it... it seriously kicks butt!

I am playing this game called Lights Out a two fisted fight game - it's actually pretty amazing. Oh... btw my son doesn't play those, those are for dad.

But yeah... I didn't think I'd like the motion controller at all but they're growing on me.

 

[MinusTheBear]

Even if a motion sensing lancer with chainsaw bayonet existed wouldn't get me excited. I don't know if I could find satisfaction in air chainsawing a locust . I'd rather my money go to games and dlc rather than peripherals.

 

[lononigedapen]

Vietnam Holiday

Vietnam Holidays

 

[Shock]

I'd rather my money go to games and dlc rather than peripherals.

That's the worst thing to happen to gaming in a decade. DLC is the reason so many games are released in a heaping mess. Or are just released incomplete and you pay extra for a complete game. Supporting paid DLC is a travesty and I cannot condemn it enough.

 

[its phillip]

Agreed. Back in the day, free patches gave you maps, missions, additional races or weapons, etc...now they nickel and dime you to death by releasing incomplete games with a bunch of dlc available from day one.

Another really lame sort of new thing is retailer exclusives.

 

[MinusTheBear]

That's the worst thing to happen to gaming in a decade. DLC is the reason so many games are released in a heaping mess. Or are just released incomplete and you pay extra for a complete game. Supporting paid DLC is a travesty and I cannot condemn it enough.

I agree with the majority of DLC out there that acts as an add-on. But DLC encompasses more than that.

 

[Wayde Robson]

I hate to seem like I'm being a **** about it but... don't buy the game if it's incomplete.

I'm not defending DLC, I think it's annoying. Generally it's totally off the table for me, I'll almost never do it. Call of Duty Map Packs are the only one I've done - and I'll do all of them.

But when you buy a game, you're buying a complete product. That's the only way to look at it. DLC are just a la carte extras. If a game seems incomplete w/o DLC, don't buy it if you can determine this incompletness through a review. Then they're selling a crappy game. Otherwise maybe the DLC only makes it seem incomplete.

I recently played Mass Effect 2, great game. I finished and apparently played through what was once DLC. If I'd played on Xbox 360 apparently a few of the missions were extras at one time. An advantage to waiting to buy a Game of the Year edition - or cross platform a year late is they often throw in some or all of the extras and the game is cheaper.

 

[its phillip]

I guess it depends on your definition of "incomplete." If a publisher/developer releases a game and there's a bunch of DLC available from day one, that is what I would call an incomplete game and it's pretty insulting considering the cost of a new game nowadays.

You can't always count on reviews, since they aren't always honest or thorough.

Also, the COD map packs are such a ripoff :/

 

[MinusTheBear]

I hate to seem like I'm being a **** about it but... don't buy the game if it's incomplete.

I'm not defending DLC, I think it's annoying. Generally it's totally off the table for me, I'll almost never do it. Call of Duty Map Packs are the only one I've done - and I'll do all of them.

But when you buy a game, you're buying a complete product. That's the only way to look at it. DLC are just a la carte extras. If a game seems incomplete w/o DLC, don't buy it if you can determine this incompletness through a review. Then they're selling a crappy game. Otherwise maybe the DLC only makes it seem incomplete.

I recently played Mass Effect 2, great game. I finished and apparently played through what was once DLC. If I'd played on Xbox 360 apparently a few of the missions were extras at one time. An advantage to waiting to buy a Game of the Year edition - or cross platform a year late is they often throw in some or all of the extras and the game is cheaper.

Those are some good points. If I really like a game, I have no problems paying for extra content for that game. And your right if you wait long enough you will get a discounted game plus all the DLC. Most recently Steam was selling Borderlands GOTY (GOTY=Borderlands+all DLC) for $7.50. This is typical of all older releases.

 

[Ares]

Day one DLC equals an incomplete game and is a total rip-off IMO.

 

[Shock]

I hate to seem like I'm being a **** about it but... don't buy the game if it's incomplete.

Unfortunately this isn't always possible. Some games are released with the DLC already on the disk and months later it is simply unlocked. Some games are also released inherently broken and it takes months, years, or forever to patch them to the place they should be. A lot of this isn't discovered until well after the initial release and reviews are published. This is being ripped off 100%. Even if the DLC is free, you're still waiting months to just have access to something you've already payed for. If I purchased a game, I want access to everything on that DVD not, half now and half later.

DLC is the main reason why game companies fail to release SDK's. They can profit off failing franchises by injecting it with "new" content.

DICE recently said that the modding community was dying, and seemed to forget their last game didn't even include a SDK or map editor. They also seemed to forget that their most popular game, BF2, had an excellent modding community. Well when no one is offering any way to mod a game, then of course it's going to seem like it's dying. These companies seem to forget that Counter Strike is still the most played online multiplayer FPS and it was a mod.

If DLC continues to become the norm then I see less and less quality games being released from day 1, and more half assed pieces of crap like the video game industry has been putting out the last half decade.

::: Thinks about Medal of Honor :::
::: Shudders :::

I have no problem with purchasing extra content as long as it is worth the money. Paying 15 bucks for 4 maps that a modding community could have created, and created better, is not what I call a good deal.

 

[Wayde Robson]

I hear your complaints about DLC, I agree. Especially for-pay DLC the day of release, that's just total cheese. It'd be easy enough to tell if that's what they were doing though by looking at PSN Store or Xbx Live and see what's available. If I saw DLC for-pay I'd probably not even think of buying that game.

 

[Shock]

I hear your complaints about DLC, I agree. Especially for-pay DLC the day of release, that's just total cheese. It'd be easy enough to tell if that's what they were doing though by looking at PSN Store or Xbx Live and see what's available. If I saw DLC for-pay I'd probably not even think of buying that game.

I have a sneaking suspicion DICE is going to do this with BF3 for some reason. Possibly because they're last game is still incomplete over a year later.