Are Nintendo always going to be a generation behind from now on?

So, The WiiU is said to have similar and maybe slightly better specs than the 360 and PS3, just as the Wii had similar and maybe slightly better specs than the xbox and ps2. This means that by new console time they have been stuck in the previous generation, making them get further behind as the generation goes on. Do you think this trend will continue for Nintendo forever now? Or will the WiiU2 match the Xbox 1080 an PS5 when it comes out and then continue as such from there?

I dont think nintendo see it that way, they look at it as innovation in other areas, thats not to say in the future they wont get back into the tech race but for now they are content with fancy controllers. tom mc shea from gamespot made a great point about the wii u , while the wii was nintendos attempt at puling the non gamer in with the waggle controller the wii u is perfectly suited for people who have been using the touch screen on their phone and now want more than just swiping their finger to fling birds while stil catering to an audience who wants dual analog controls.

I somewhat doubt they're going to survive the next gen at all, so the question is largely moot.

I think they're kind of just going their own route and aim for innovation instead of maximum powerhouse. The latter clearly hasn't worked in the past (for anyone) so I guess why would'nt they, right?

Being behind in graphical proficiency is not the same as being "behind a generation."

But if the WiiU sells decently and economic conditions improve, I think Nintendo will step up the hardware for the next console.

Hopefully not, but they aren't really doing much to keep up and advance.

@Bigandtasty said:

Being behind in graphical proficiency is not the same as being "behind a generation."

But if the WiiU sells decently and economic conditions improve, I think Nintendo will step up the hardware for the next console.

Enough said.

I wouldn't say that they are a generation behind, it is more like they are a generation to the left.

@Terramagi: kindly elaborate.

Probably. They're too in love with their own dumb gimmicks to actually keep up with the other systems.

If anything they are actually ahead with their release. I wouldn't classify the Wii a generation behind because where would you then place Gamecube in the generation of consoles?

Do you mean a generation ahead? Microsoft and Sony have been struggling to put out things similar to Nintendo's latest console while Nintendo just keeps pushing ahead with what they do. I don't even own a Wii and I can see this.

I play my Wii more than anything else, though mostly on retro stuff. But my 360 sits there collecting dust, the Wii is the console that gets all the action. Besides that, Wii already won the sales race. And don't forget that Nintendo has made more money from Pokemon than Stars Wars and Star Trek combined (or so I've heard) and still continue to do so, at this point it seems near impossible that Nintendo would ever truly fail, especially considering that it took Microsoft 9 years to turn a profit on the original Xbox, whereas Nintendo has made money with each of their systems. Sony and MS lost money until only recently.

You can never say the Wii U will be less powerful than the next playstation or xbox when you don't know anything about these next consoles. Also there is one catch in that line of thought. If consoles would continue to dramatically increase their power, how much more expensive would the games become to develop, because of the ultra super HD graphics and other next gen kinks? And much more would the consumers pay for their games?

I predict that the next consoles won't be very far appart from one another in power. It will be much more homogeneous.

Depends on how you define your "generation." Nintendo is moving forward when it comes to changing the way you interact with your product. Microsoft and Sony are obviously adapting that philosophy while maxing out their systems power potential. I think that if Microsoft and Sony release their next system that is merely just a more powerful machine, than no. However, if they decide to adapt like Nintendo and really push forward with the Move/Kinect; I think we will see Nintendo struggling to keep up. Both companies have made leaps and bounds of progress with both motion systems that require new hardware to really simulate.

All I know is that the next "generation" of consoles in terms of chronical additions will be an interesting one. I hope Microsoft and Sony really show up Nintendo and put them back on their game. The Wii's stagnant library with a couple of decent first party additions (excluding Galaxy, which was amazing) just isn't impressive anymore. If they can snag the audience Nintendo is obviously feeding from, it will cause them to have to go back to the drawing board.

Honestly, I don't know how much more the PS4 and NextBox are going to have in terms of power. There was a rumor sometime last year that the next Xbox was going to have the equivalent of a weak AMD card from last generation built into it, which does not sound like much at all. For all we know, the Wii U might even be equivalent to the next consoles because these days, graphics are "good enough" for most people and the idea of turning a profit with both the hardware and software sounds really good to Sony and MS, and should sound pretty good to the consumers as well if both consoles are ~$300 instead of outrageously expensive like before. Really, the only people that would be seriously hurt are the PC gamers with $2000 machines who really, really want to push their expensive rigs to the limit.

Note that I'm just talking out of my ass here and the chances of me being right or wrong are probably about the same. The next consoles from MS and Sony might turn out to be $600 "beasts" that are really loud and crap out on their owners after a year due to inefficient cooling.

I'm not sure Nintendo will be making hardware a generation from now.

@believer258 said:

The next consoles from MS and Sony might turn out to be $600 "beasts" that are really loud and crap out on their owners after a year due to inefficient cooling.

And people will praise them for it.

I don't get this, the stakes are already so high on video games that we either get AAA software or downloadable titles, with nothing in between; where a company lives or dies on the success of its last game (or two). Continuing down this route will lead to another market crash.

Either the next Sony and Microsoft systems will be SLIGHTLY more advanced and cost $350-$400 (which I don't see happening), or they will double-down on graphics and horsepower again and release $450-600 consoles which I won't get for two years until they are much more stable and less cost-prohibitive.

So, in either case, Nintendo will be okay price-wise or power-wise. The issue is that nobody is going to make games for them, and they don't believe in paying for 3rd-party exclusives.

In terms of power I would say they will probably be behind for a while but in terms of innovation and trying to move videogames "forward" then they are usually ahead of the curve. If the wii ends up being the beginning of games in general being made with motion control primarily in mind, then that system has ruined gaming on a console for me. I will always be a button and stick man because honestly I dislike flailing my arms about like an idiot when I play my games.

I can't think of a single thing Nintendo did with the Wii that made video games better as a whole. I can't see it happening with the WiiU either. They may innovate, but their innovations are shitty gimmicks that sell to all the people looking for the latest fad for a while and have zero lasting effect on anything worthwhile. 

I'm not sure Nintendo will be making hardware a generation from now.

I think Nintendo have taken themselves out of the next gen race. However they will keep playing the gimmick card claiming its innovation. I mean did the wii truly innovate anything? Are we all now playing with motion controls and are Nintendo about to release their 2nd generation of motion gaming. Or did the gimmick just mislead the general public by promising more than they could deliver? I'm pretty sure most gamers who do pick up a WiiU will being doing it so they can play the latest Nintendo game but as far as 3rd party games that'll be on the next Xbox and PS.

@Wrighteous86 said:

Either the next Sony and Microsoft systems will be SLIGHTLY more advanced and cost $350-$400 (which I don't see happening), or they will double-down on graphics and horsepower again and release $450-600 consoles which I won't get for two years until they are much more stable and less cost-prohibitive.

You're missing the part where Nintendo likes to have a big fat profit margin on their hardware, while Sony and Microsoft are willing to sell theirs at cost or with a loss. The Vita had the same launch price as the 3DS after all, but leagues more powerful hardware, and the 3DS price cut came at the cost of that big Nintendo profit margin.

Yes , because the Wii didin't actually lived enough to prove on it's goal of motion controls for gaming , what were the best selling/ high rated Wii games? Super Mario Galaxy , Smash Bros Brawl , Kirby's Epic Yarn ...? I can't remember but a lot of them barely used the motion controls wich is baffling to me when people say "they are the only ones innovating!" where? with what? you mean inaccurate motion controls and waggle?.

They have decided to go the other route again because they're focus is another (the casual audience) but the Wii U is looking just like the Wii from where I stand , focusing on a different kind of controller a different experience yet not delivering on it with the games , probably the most successful games will be those made by Nintendo that use the hardware but only a tiny fraction would be dedicated to use the tablet controller in some innovative way.

Being behind in graphical proficiency is not the same as being "behind a generation."

But if the WiiU sells decently and economic conditions improve, I think Nintendo will step up the hardware for the next console.

@TheSouthernDandy said:

@Bigandtasty

Being behind in graphical proficiency is not the same as being "behind a generation."

But if the WiiU sells decently and economic conditions improve, I think Nintendo will step up the hardware for the next console.

It's not no but at the same time if they're not keeping on track with the competition from a hardware perspective they need to rely on the 'gimmick' factor to sell systems like motion did for the wii. I'm not gonna count them out but I dunno if lightning can strike twice for them.

If the system isn't strong enough to run advanced AI or do complex calculations, be able to draw more complex scenes etc, then I'd say that it should be considered behind a generation. It's not all just about graphical prowess.

@Jams said:

@TheSouthernDandy said:

If the system isn't strong enough to run advanced AI or do complex calculations, have multiple enemies etc, then I'd say that it should be considered behind a generation. It's not all just about graphical prowess.

I'd also lump in the online capabilities of the system. The original Xbox was miles ahead of the Wii. Hopefully Nintendo can step up their game with the Wii U.

I think the next thing they put out could end up right in the middle of the next xbox and playstations life cycle and actually be the stronger system.

I can't think of a single thing Nintendo did with the Wii that made video games better as a whole. I can't see it happening with the WiiU either. They may innovate, but their innovations are shitty gimmicks that sell to all the people looking for the latest fad for a while and have zero lasting effect on anything worthwhile. 

@Jams said:

@TheSouthernDandy said:

If the system isn't strong enough to run advanced AI or do complex calculations, have multiple enemies etc, then I'd say that it should be considered behind a generation. It's not all just about graphical prowess.

I'd also lump in the online capabilities of the system. The original Xbox was miles ahead of the Wii. Hopefully Nintendo can step up their game with the Wii U.

@BlackLagoon said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

Either the next Sony and Microsoft systems will be SLIGHTLY more advanced and cost $350-$400 (which I don't see happening), or they will double-down on graphics and horsepower again and release $450-600 consoles which I won't get for two years until they are much more stable and less cost-prohibitive.

You're missing the part where Nintendo likes to have a big fat profit margin on their hardware, while Sony and Microsoft are willing to sell theirs at cost or with a loss. The Vita had the same launch price as the 3DS after all, but leagues more powerful hardware, and the 3DS price cut came at the cost of that big Nintendo profit margin.

You're just a bit wrong. Nintendo likes to make money on their hardware, Sony and Microsoft do not sell their new consoles at cost... they always sell their new consoles below cost because they want to make money. So, Nintendo, who makes what, $6 on each console sold... yep, big fat profit margin. In fact, in November 2005 it was reported that Microsoft lost $153 on each console sold. Microsoft took billions of dollars of a financial hit ans only started making money on their investment not that long ago.

@mosespippy said:

I'm not sure Nintendo will be making hardware a generation from now.

@Terramagi said:

I somewhat doubt they're going to survive the next gen at all, so the question is largely moot.

Nintendo is the least likely of the big three to die.

I don't think anyone can predict what Nintendo will do.

What an idiotic thread. Asking questions like this without the spec of the other consoles?

However. Before people get into flamewars protective and attacking systems for no reason. Why not just take this http://www.giantbomb.com/whore-of-the-orient/61-39583/ as a sign that maybe Wii U will be on Par with the next gen consoles.

Making a game for all 3 seems like a good start to me.

@MAGZine said:

@BlackLagoon said:

@Wrighteous86 said:

Either the next Sony and Microsoft systems will be SLIGHTLY more advanced and cost $350-$400 (which I don't see happening), or they will double-down on graphics and horsepower again and release $450-600 consoles which I won't get for two years until they are much more stable and less cost-prohibitive.

You're missing the part where Nintendo likes to have a big fat profit margin on their hardware, while Sony and Microsoft are willing to sell theirs at cost or with a loss. The Vita had the same launch price as the 3DS after all, but leagues more powerful hardware, and the 3DS price cut came at the cost of that big Nintendo profit margin.

You're just a bit wrong. Nintendo likes to make money on their hardware, Sony and Microsoft do not sell their new consoles at cost... they always sell their new consoles below cost because they want to make money. So, Nintendo, who makes what, $6 on each console sold... yep, big fat profit margin. In fact, in November 2005 it was reported that Microsoft lost $153 on each console sold. Microsoft took billions of dollars of a financial hit ans only started making money on their investment not that long ago.

I was suggesting that maybe MS and Sony might just catch their machines up to what a low-end gaming computer is these days and sell it to make profit on hardware, instead of at a loss. True, this is unprecedented, but a lot of the business practices that have come about this generation have been "unprecedented". Couple this with the fact that the world's economy is still in the shitter (particularly America, who buys a huge chunk of these things), and you have a recipe for some unexpected changes in business practices. Hell, just look at the free-to-play model for evidence of change - that sort of thing was not expected to blossom way back in 2007, 2008, but it has.

Again, though, I'm just making guesses here, shooting in the dark as it were.

I love laughing at people that think that Nintendo won't make a console for the next generation. Out of all of the console makers here, Nintendo will survive. People should be worried about Sony instead.

"I'm not sure Nintendo will be making hardware a generation from now"

Same, i'm surprised if they really are still with us on 2020-something..

@Wrighteous86: Even if the only change in graphics from this generation to the next is that Durango and Orbis games run at 1080p native and 60 fps, it will still be a massive leap in visual quality from the games coming out with sub-720p rendering at 30 fps. I could see something with the necessary specs to do that coming in below $400. By all the accounts I've heard, the WiiU isn't even managing that yet, though maybe they'll get there once the developers have familiarized themselves with the hardware.

At this point they seem content with making and quickly launching gimmicky control schemes, that the other companies then take and make actually workable into more mainstream gaming. The next consoles from MS specifically, but also likely Sony will have Tablet integration, and maybe even tablet style controllers available down the road. We've seen the writing on the wall from MS about this specifically. I don't think Nintendo will be able to bottle lightening twice (wii sports and the console hit this weird level of mainstream hype they cannot hope to repeat) and could struggle with WiiU if something big doesn't happen for them. I think it's an obvious cash in opportunity to replicate DS games onto a living room console, which could flood the system with mediocre shovelware.

And that's really my biggest concern. I bought a wii, played sports, galaxy 1, and some smash, and then it sat for 3 years. It's a glorified low-def netflix box that my daughter uses to occasionally play NSMBWii or, more often, watch disney channel shows on netflix. If they aren't coming out with interesting games that I should be buying when I already own the console, why purchase the new one?

@Scrawnto: If the console is subsidized, sure. That is, if Microsoft and Sony lose money on each console they sell. I know it's easy to spew a couple of numbers like "1080p" and "60 fps" but the fact is that you'd need some serious hardware to run Battlefield 3 on Ultra at 1080p and 60fps. Hell, they could've made Skyrim run like that, but it would've looked like garbage.

@Jams said:

@TheSouthernDandy said:

@Bigandtasty

Being behind in graphical proficiency is not the same as being "behind a generation."

But if the WiiU sells decently and economic conditions improve, I think Nintendo will step up the hardware for the next console.

It's not no but at the same time if they're not keeping on track with the competition from a hardware perspective they need to rely on the 'gimmick' factor to sell systems like motion did for the wii. I'm not gonna count them out but I dunno if lightning can strike twice for them.

If the system isn't strong enough to run advanced AI or do complex calculations, be able to draw more complex scenes etc, then I'd say that it should be considered behind a generation. It's not all just about graphical prowess.

Yeah, that always bothers me. Around the beginning of this generation, when people loved launching the "graphic whore" attack, I was always confused as to why they seemed to think that's all more computing power goes to. I don't care about graphics, but I do care about the hardware under the hood that allows us to have more expansive, complex, and interesting games.

Honestly, I think the main reason that the Wii was criticized for its lack of graphical power was because the jump was so large for this generation. The Difference between the PS2/Xbox and the PS3/360 graphically are very stark, and it made the wii look worse in comparison.

This next generation, while graphically will improve, will not be a huge jump like the HD jump was. And I think that the Wii-U really wont suffer in the long run by being weaker than the ps3/360. Especially if it has a start like the Wii did. I also don't think that the Ps4/720 are going to be these huge powerhouses at release machines. I think that they will look to be more economic than powerful. So I don't think the Wii-U will be that far behind.

If anything, if the Nintendo and the Wii-U fail, I think that home Consoles as a whole will fail. OR deeply regress. Thanks to a resurgence in PC gaming, and a growing popularity in Mobile games. Where apple basically becomes a Console creator through Osmosis.

.....Holy Shit, what if Nintendo Fail, and Apple Partners with them to lead a gaming division for Apple. I just had that thought, though that will never happen.

It's a matter of perspective. Sure, if it's all about what the console could produce graphics-wise, then yeah. Nintendo is just taking another route. Not sure if it's my thing, but at least it's interesting to see what they do. It seems more like an experiment than a classic gaming device.

To be honest, I feel kind of split on this topic. I want the next consoles from Sony and Microsoft to be able to handle todays graphics more smoothly. Better frame rate etc, but it does not necessarily have to make a huge step when it comes to power. The PC will handle that stuff. I just want great games, great stories, great gameplay. I'm kind of tired of seeing the evolution of games from the perspective of looks and graphical power. I know a lot of high-end-PC-users get mad about these things, since it apparently makes an impact on the game library for that platform. They feel that the potential of the hardware is held back, and I can understand that. But when it comes to consoles, I think that developers have greater challenges to overcome than trying to pump out the most from the hardware. It does not matter how pretty it looks if the console can't keep up. So I rather see them trying to push storytelling, making better interactive experiences, focusing on emotional responses. Sure, I love me some good looking games, but for me the journey is far more important. And if we give developers a break on the whole who's-got-the-best-graphics-race, I think we can get a lot of great games as far as gameplay, story and smoother presentations are concerned.

Nintendo is not taking that route even though they have the opportunity to do so. It seems like it's more casual fun for them. Guess that appeals to some. Not doing it for me though.

I think that right now it's very unclear that the console cycle is going to continue as it has done since the Genesis came out in 1988. With online services, the PC being what it is and the economy being all messed up, I don't think we can certainly predict that there will be "new consoles" in 2018, 2024 and 2030. If they are, the differences between them will be of a different sort than we've seen in the past.

@MAGZine said:

@Scrawnto: If the console is subsidized, sure. That is, if Microsoft and Sony lose money on each console they sell. I know it's easy to spew a couple of numbers like "1080p" and "60 fps" but the fact is that you'd need some serious hardware to run Battlefield 3 on Ultra at 1080p and 60fps. Hell, they could've made Skyrim run like that, but it would've looked like garbage.

I would absolutely lay money on the consoles being subsidized. They were last generation, and the Xbox was before that.

And as I said before, even without the settings on Ultra, the resolution and framerate increases alone would be a substantial improvement. I never said a $400 console would be able to measure up to a $1200 PC.

Style can make up for a lack of graphical fidelity, but there's no substitute for the fluidity of a high framerate or the clarity of high resolution.

I say they won't release a console (or at least be in the same running as) when the PS5 and Xbox4 come out. I think they'll go the same way as Sega and just make games for other consoles and I actually am glad that it might happen.

@Zornack said:

@Jams said:

@TheSouthernDandy said:

If the system isn't strong enough to run advanced AI or do complex calculations, have multiple enemies etc, then I'd say that it should be considered behind a generation. It's not all just about graphical prowess.

I'd also lump in the online capabilities of the system. The original Xbox was miles ahead of the Wii. Hopefully Nintendo can step up their game with the Wii U.

Both great points. I have nothing against Nintendo, I got a lot of love for those guys but I don't think this next console is gonna go as well as the Wii did. I didn't buy a Wii and it's pretty unlikely I'm gonna buy the next one.

@Terramagi said:

I somewhat doubt they're going to survive the next gen at all, so the question is largely moot.

I agree. I find with each gen their player base decreases in age. I loved NES and SNES as a kid and haven't really had a place for them in my gaming library for almost 20 years. I faithfully buy each console because I cling to Nintendo memories from my youth (Zelda, 1943, Mario, Duck Hunt, Contra, Nintendo Power etc) and with each console find less and less I like about them. My declining interest began with the N64 and has steadily continued on. I don't know anyone my age (32) that has Nintendo as their go to console. Sure they always have awesome exclusive titles that are extremely well made and fun games, but 3rd party support is almost non-existent.

Each generation of Nintendo console and game library seems to get weaker and weaker and targets a younger audience in my opinion.

@Wrighteous86 said:

So, in either case, Nintendo will be okay price-wise or power-wise. The issue is that nobody is going to make games for them, and they don't believe in paying for 3rd-party exclusives.

As much as I don't, I'd like to believe that picking up Bayonetta 2 is a sign that they're willing to pay for cool exclusives again. But I doubt it. :\