• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)

Reader mode
D36 said:
If Redrakted is launching next year, I'd imagine that the big exclusive would be a 3D Mario. Though I wonder how well it will sell in its first quarter if the system is expected to sell around 5 million units. No doubt it'll be an evergreen title, but it's still interesting to think about. Maybe a Holiday launch will help with that, but that would also put it next to Pokemon.
Click to expand...
What are the odds that Pokemon will release a new mainline game on the first year of a console? AFAIK that has never happened. These are the first mainline games (including remakes and third versions/sequels) that have released in each console starting from GBA:

GBA (March 2001): Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire, Release date: Nov 2002.
DS (Nov 2004): Pokemon Diamond and Pearl, Release date: Nov 2006.
3DS (Feb 2011): Pokemon X and Y, Release date: Oct 2013.
Switch (March 2017): Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!, Release date: Nov 2018.

Almost all the first games are new generations, and the shortest timeframe from the release of the console to the release of the game is 1 year 8 months. The 3DS even had a timeframe of 2 years and 8 months. So under this timeline, the earliest I see a mainline Pokemon game coming for Switch 2 is Holiday 2025, and given recent generation trends (3DS and Switch) the earliest I see a new gen game (Gen X) is Holiday 2026.

Also, assuming that this year is only for DLC (kinda like how 2020 was) then that leaves next year as an unknown regarding what kind of game could be released during the holidays. It could be nothing, Pokemon has had several years without releases before, though there hasn't been a single year without mainline Pokemon games since 2015. A remake is another possibility that was floating around the internet, however, there is a pattern I want to bring to the table. Let's look at the release years of all the mainline Pokemon Remakes:

2004 FireRed and LeafGreen
2009 HeartGold and SoulSilver
2014 Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire
2018 Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!
2021 Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl
2024 ???????????????????????

There is a 5 year gap between FRLG and HGSS, 5 years between HGSS and ORAS, and 7 years between ORAS and BDSP. The outlier is LGPE, but that is a different style of remake that is completely unrelated to the others, given the radically different, Pokemon GO-inspired catching mechanics and the simplified gameplay.

If anything, a game in the same vein as LGPE (Johto perhaps?) or a new, out of field mainline experience like Pokemon Legends: Arceus can fit snuggly in that year, and since GF won't need to target a higher end console they can keep a short development time for what would amount as their Switch swan song.

Fun fact: 2026 is exactly 30 years after the original Pokemon Red and Green release in Japan (1996), so they might use it as a celebration similar to how SM was a celebration of 20 years of the franchise.
 
kalosmani said:
2023 believers don't make sense. Mario Bros Wonder kills any chance of it.

There will be a marketing cycle for Mario Bros Wonder, why would they let Switch 2 come out a month after that doesn't make sense.

Then if you believe Switch 2 will release in October with Mario Bros Wonder, then Nintendo would have had Mario Bros Wonder part of the Switch 2 reveal even if it is a cross gen game alongside other Switch 2 games.

The only hope is Switch 2 releases in March 2024 and even I am doubting that to be honest but it is possible with the Metroid Prime 4 and Mario Kart being the launch titles in March 2024. But if I had to guess I'd September - November 2024 Switch 2 release with 3D Mario and Metroid Prime 4 being the launch titles.
Click to expand...

I will admit that 2023 is feeling less and less likely, but not because of Mario Wonder. Quite the opposite actually. If the consensus is that Redacted will have a year or two of cross gen support, Mario Wonder fits in perfectly as a cross gen title. Nintendo is not going to release a wildly ambitious 3D Mario game for Redacted that would be severely compromised on Switch. The games that would remain cross gen are the ones that really target Switch first and foremost and then get upgraded for Redacted. The Princess Peach game and Luigis Mansion Dark Moon fit well within the abilities of the Nintendo Switch and therefore work well as cross gen titles. So if you are looking at these games as proof that there is no new hardware coming, then you are basically saying you do not expect Nintendo to have a cross gen period. Or at the very least no cross gen titles would get revealed until after Redacted is revealed?
 
wolftendo said:
I don't see the announcement coming before Super Mario Wonder release, if anything just a PR statement acknowledging that the console exists. Why? Because a full reveal requires revealing or at least teasing the slate of exclusives that will come to the new platform, and Nintendo doesn't want those games to affect the hype and sales of the first new 2D mario game in 10 years. I know BOTW was announced for the NX before the switch's full reveal, but let's remember that by then the new gen console was already acknowledged and that BOTW was a cross-gen release. So for example, if MP4 is a cross-gen release I see it being revealed before the Succ but not any of the latter's exclusives.

Though all bets are off about the time between the full reveal and release, the switch had like 5 months from its first trailer to release so who knows?

Of course, this assumes that features such as BC won't be revealed until later in the Succ's marketing cycle, I doubt such features would be shown in a first reveal. We found out about the switch's cost and paid online plans until 2 months before release.
Click to expand...
I don't think Nintendo will hold off announcing new hardware just because they have dated games in the 5 to 18 month period between announcement and release. After all, we're expecting Nintendo to keep supporting the Switch in some capacity in the meantime - and people will still want good games in the meantime.

(That's a different thing to whether Nintendo actually release the Switch 2 around the same time as a big Switch 1 game, which would risk detracting from the sales of the Switch 1 game.)

kalosmani said:
What do you mean by that's just how Nintendo rolls. Nintendo only showed off Breath of the Wild and Twilight Princess early is because they initially didn't plan to release those games on the successor consoles. And once they realised they fully moved their marketing on the successor console making people almost forget these games are cross gen games. It would be very unlike Nintendo to reveal a big cross gen game first for Switch 1 then announce later for Switch 2. They would benefit much more going the Sony approach and revealing the cross gen games with the reveal of Switch 2. Also Mario 2D game doesn't seem like a game that would showcase a graphical leap from being cross gen.
Click to expand...
To expand on this, I think Twilight Princess and BotW are both examples of cross-gen games that showed off the potential of the newer console.

Twilight Princess had motion controls, which could only be used on Wii. That made clear that it wasn't just the same experience as on GameCube. (Plus, Wii wasn't marketed as a big graphical jump from the GameCube.)

BotW is an even more interesting example, because its existence as a Wii U cross-gen game actually helped hammer home the big benefit of the Switch: here is the latest and greatest Nintendo home console game, able to seamlessly be played on the go.

For a similar theme to work for Switch -> Switch 2, Switch 2 would need to have some new feature that's central to its marketing. Conversely, if its main new feature is "just" better graphics, then I'd expect Nintendo to want to show that off with a game that has better graphics.

Basically, cross-gen launch titles do need to be considered in the context of the specific transition, including the key marketing messages.
 
snorkellingfish said:
Tbh, I'm still expecting a shorter than usual marketing cycle for Switch 2. I just don't expect it to have a short er marketing cycle than its main launch title. (I get that people may offer Twilight Princess and BotW as counter-examples, but neither the Wii nor the Switch was sold as a big graphics jump from its home console predecessor.)

I think the game announcements in the latest Direct, especially Mario Wonder, haven't left calendar space for a 2023 release to be realistic - but, if not for those, I'd have see an announcement in the next month or so as still being potentially feasible, with a 4-5 month announcement-to-release time frame.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you on a shorter marketing cycle than before. I do not expect a year+ long adventure like last time. Personally I think there will be at least a six month wait from Nintendo formally acknowledging the existence of a new generation to launch day.
 
0
ReyVGM said:
They still can't force 3rd parties to make unnecessarily patches.
Click to expand...

Nintendo being the publisher they can do anything they want with the game. Keep in mind the leaker didn't claim to be part of GameFreak, but instead was contract work being done to improve the game for new hardware. Assuming the leaker is legit, its very possible that the Redacted next gen patch work is being handled completely outside of GameFreak. Again though, with Nintendo being the publisher, it is absolutely within their rights to outsource a next gen patch for this game if they would like to do so.
 
ReyVGM said:
They still can't force 3rd parties to make unnecessarily patches.
Click to expand...

Yes they can force them, they will tie them up if necessary, might add chains but this might turn into some Redacted



Anyway, It’s business it’s not about forcing.. it’s about respecting the terms of the partnership, don’t be too emotional
 
casualreader said:
But so based on what you said, did eurogamer get into some s when they leaked one year in advance the main feature of the switch ? Like how significant are the consequences in general?
Click to expand...
No consequences for Eurogamer. The person who leaked to Eurogamer violated an NDA, as it was almost definitely a developer partner with a devkit. As for corporate/trade secret laws, in general those only apply if the value the company gets derives from secrecy - as in a proprietary process - and even then it's only a crime if you broke another law to acquire said data. Again, Eurogamer isn't at fault at all, at most the original developer who disclosed this info to Eurogamer. That developer did so almost definitely because devkits were becoming so common in the industry, that there was no way for Nintendo to trace the leak back to the company they worked for.
 
wolftendo said:
What are the odds that Pokemon will release a new mainline game on the first year of a console? AFAIK that has never happened. These are the first mainline games (including remakes and third versions/sequels) that have released in each console starting from GBA:

GBA (March 2001): Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire, Release date: Nov 2002.
DS (Nov 2004): Pokemon Diamond and Pearl, Release date: Nov 2006.
3DS (Feb 2011): Pokemon X and Y, Release date: Oct 2013.
Switch (March 2017): Pokémon: Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!, Release date: Nov 2018.

Almost all the first games are new generations, and the shortest timeframe from the release of the console to the release of the game is 1 year 8 months. The 3DS even had a timeframe of 2 years and 8 months. So under this timeline, the earliest I see a mainline Pokemon game coming for Switch 2 is Holiday 2025, and given recent generation trends (3DS and Switch) the earliest I see a new gen game (Gen X) is Holiday 2026.

Also, assuming that this year is only for DLC (kinda like how 2020 was) then that leaves next year as an unknown regarding what kind of game could be released during the holidays. It could be nothing, Pokemon has had several years without releases before, though there hasn't been a single year without mainline Pokemon games since 2015. A remake is another possibility that was floating around the internet, however, there is a pattern I want to bring to the table. Let's look at the release years of all the mainline Pokemon Remakes:

2004 FireRed and LeafGreen
2009 HeartGold and SoulSilver
2014 Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire
2018 Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee!
2021 Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl
2024 ???????????????????????

There is a 5 year gap between FRLG and HGSS, 5 years between HGSS and ORAS, and 7 years between ORAS and BDSP. The outlier is LGPE, but that is a different style of remake that is completely unrelated to the others, given the radically different, Pokemon GO-inspired catching mechanics and the simplified gameplay.

If anything, a game in the same vein as LGPE (Johto perhaps?) or a new, out of field mainline experience like Pokemon Legends: Arceus can fit snuggly in that year, and since GF won't need to target a higher end console they can keep a short development time for what would amount as their Switch swan song.

Fun fact: 2026 is exactly 30 years after the original Pokemon Red and Green release in Japan (1996), so they might use it as a celebration similar to how SM was a celebration of 20 years of the franchise.
Click to expand...
I expect next year's Pokemon game to be a Remake and it'll at least be on Switch, so I wouldn't worry on that front too much.
 
Pokemaniac said:
It's not just new consoles. The launch titles for both named Switch revisions were announced and dated before the hardware was revealed. If the game can run on existing hardware, Nintendo doesn't really hold back on talking about it.

If Khu is backing the Terastall forms thing, we can be pretty confident that it's real, it just makes the post difficult to judge. Adding new Pokémon-specific forms is absolutely historical DLC/3rd version territory for the series, but all the previous battle gimmicks have had some Pokémon-specific variants from day one, so it's actually minorly surprising that Terastall is getting that after no hints of it in the base game.
Click to expand...
Didn't Khu get quite a few things wrong?
 
Goodtwin said:
Nintendo being the publisher they can do anything they want with the game. Keep in mind the leaker didn't claim to be part of GameFreak, but instead was contract work being done to improve the game for new hardware. Assuming the leaker is legit, its very possible that the Redacted next gen patch work is being handled completely outside of GameFreak. Again though, with Nintendo being the publisher, it is absolutely within their rights to outsource a next gen patch for this game if they would like to do so.
Click to expand...
But that's not what I was responding to. The user said Gamefreak has to "comply and execute " if Nintendo tells them to make a performance patch and that's just not true.

As for your statement, it doesn't quite work that way. Nintendo can, with permission from Gamefreak, contract another company to make the patch. But that's only if Gamefreak allows it.

Remember that Nintendo doesn't own Pokemon (The Pokémon Company does) and them being a publisher doesn't give them the right to modify someone else's game without their permission.
 
ReyVGM said:
Nintendo can ask, but Gamefreak absolutely does not have to "execute and comply" to something like that.
Gamefreak is an independent 3rd party company, Nintendo doesn't own a single percent of it and can't force them to make performance patches.
Click to expand...

How does the Series S feature parity requirement work then (or whatever it happens to be called)? You end up with titles like Baldur’s Gate 3 that skip at least for the moment because of challenges. They aren’t just pushing out whatever game they please, otherwise we’d see an X version soon.

Why can Nintendo not enforce a requirement that a Pokémon title have a new gen patch if it’s to launch on their system? Perhaps not specific to Pokémon, but any game developed by themselves and their partners after X date?
 
P4bl0 said:
Yes they can force them, they will tie them up if necessary, might add chains but this might turn into some Redacted

Anyway, It’s business it’s not about forcing.. it’s about respecting the terms of the partnership, don’t be too emotional
Click to expand...

So which one is it?
"yes they can force them" or "it's business not about forcing"?

You know what? Due to your low-quality posts and drivel it's best if I just put you on ignore for a few months.
 
Please refrain from stereotyping cultures and nations. -xghost777, Derachi, mariodk18
ReyVGM said:
But that's not what I was responding to. The user said Gamefreak has to "comply and execute " if Nintendo tells them to make a performance patch and that's just not true.
Click to expand...

Yes they have to comply and execute, Nintendo is the big boss and their main client, there is respect of hierarchy in Japan even if they separate companies they will make all the requested patches with a big ass smile on their face
 
P4bl0 said:
Yes they have to comply and execute, Nintendo is the big boss and their main client, there is respect of hierarchy in Japan even if they separate companies they will make all the requested patches with a big ass smile on their face
Click to expand...
This is some real (I'm an Expert) posting
 
karmitt said:
How does the Series S feature parity requirement work then (or whatever it happens to be called)? You end up with titles like Baldur’s Gate 3 that skip at least for the moment because of challenges. They aren’t just pushing out whatever game they please, otherwise we’d see an X version soon.

Why can Nintendo not enforce a requirement that a Pokémon title have a new gen patch if it’s to launch on their system? Perhaps not specific to Pokémon, but any game developed by themselves and their partners after X date?
Click to expand...

They can ask, beg and enforce, but in the end it's up to GF if they want to do it (or allow it).

I'm not saying they will refuse, I'm just saying that Nintendo can't literally force GF because Nintendo doesn't own them.

But of course, due to their close relationship, if Nintendo asks, I'm sure GF would do it once way or another.

I'm just saying that Nintendo can't force them.
 
ngpdrew said:
Why would Nintendo want to kneecap the sales potential of a 20+ million seller in Super Mario Bros. Wonder by releasing a console a month later?
Click to expand...
People that buy a game like that don’t care about a new shiny console day 1 except for the people on a forum.

Don’t kid yourself. There’s no kneecapping.

While I’m not on team 23, this is like saying “why would Nintendo kneecap Animal Crossing by having a console release a month later” like what

If it was TOTK, sure. There could be that. But this is a completely different game that appeals to a different much more casual market.
 
Last edited:
ReyVGM said:
They can ask, beg and enforce, but in the end it's up to GF if they want to do it (or allow it).

I'm not saying they will refuse, I'm just saying that Nintendo can't literally force GF because Nintendo doesn't own them.

But of course, due to their close relationship, if Nintendo asks, I'm sure GF would do it once way or another.

I'm just saying that Nintendo can't force them.
Click to expand...

But they could prevent a title from launching on the only platform it’s allowed to launch on, and is that not almost the same thing? I assume Game Freak needs their frequent Pokémon title launches more than Nintendo needs them.

Anyway, I agree this is all hypothetical and there’d be no ‘forcing’ involved. Their relationship can’t be that strained.
 
P4bl0 said:
If Nintendo asks them to work on a performance patch for a next gen console they have to execute and comply.

Most of the famous PS4 games got a performance patch for PS5 support after the launch of the console (I'm not talking about a PS5 edition) even if it's not heavily marketed, see it as a bonus, not a groundbreaking upgrade

So it's common practice in the industry
Click to expand...
Even IF a next gen patch was being made for S/V, there is nothing that dictates it has to release at the same time as the second DLC other than this one leaker claiming so. Nintendo has shown a willingness to hold back software for more than a year it's very possible that the patch is being developed at the same time and the leaker incorrectly assumed that meant they would release at the same time.
P4bl0 said:
Yes they have to comply and execute, Nintendo is the big boss and their main client, there is respect of hierarchy in Japan even if they separate companies they will make all the requested patches with a big ass smile on their face
Click to expand...
Yeah you're just trolling now. This is indistinguishable from the infamous neogaf post reacting to FF13 no longer being PS3 exclusive.
 
JoshuaJSlone said:
DS to present the range for Nintendo in first reported quarter has been 2.74-3.61m.

Eurogamer's report on tablet with removable controllers was a little less than 3 months before the reveal video.
Click to expand...
oldpuck said:
No consequences for Eurogamer. The person who leaked to Eurogamer violated an NDA, as it was almost definitely a developer partner with a devkit. As for corporate/trade secret laws, in general those only apply if the value the company gets derives from secrecy - as in a proprietary process - and even then it's only a crime if you broke another law to acquire said data. Again, Eurogamer isn't at fault at all, at most the original developer who disclosed this info to Eurogamer. That developer did so almost definitely because devkits were becoming so common in the industry, that there was no way for Nintendo to trace the leak back to the company they worked for.
Click to expand...
Woop got my memories mixed up. So both these messages imply that leaks can happen, although with enough ppl in the know. So nothing really against a reveal before the end of this year.
On the release per se, I like the Pokémon argument a lot, like gf always refrained from publishing a game on a hardware without the install base. Since we can be pretty sure the next generation of Pokémon is coming in Nov 2025, that would mean a release date for the hardware of at least 18 months ahead ? Eg march of next year ? Solving the equation as we can :)
 
Last edited:
karmitt said:
But they could prevent a title from launching on the only platform it’s allowed to launch on, and is that not almost the same thing? I assume Game Freak needs their frequent Pokémon title launches more than Nintendo needs them.

Anyway, I agree this is all hypothetical and there’d be no ‘forcing’ involved. Their relationship can’t be that strained.
Click to expand...
Both need the frequent Pokemon titles. We already know what GF needs those releases for but for Nintendo:
  • Pokémon is a fairly big driver of software & hardware. They also cover holiday periods. And, help expand & keep that expanded audience
Just think of the Switch if you removed the two mainline Pokémon games from their rotation. Nintendo could have stopped GF from remaining on 3DS but didn’t because they don’t really have control over GF. The relationship isn’t really strained since we know Nintendo will step in from time to time; on a whole though Nintendo is content to let GF do what they want.
 
karmitt said:
Literally the same for the vast majority of consumers outside of initial costs, which we cannot assume anything about.

Given you disagree, pray tell what is so different about it?
Click to expand...
Definitely is almost 100% indistinguishable to most consumers functionally, unless they mean pricing. No need for a screen and any portable specific engineering, would allow for a lower entry price point.

But yeah, it wouldn’t have any extra “special” features…
 
0
TLZ said:
Not the same.
Click to expand...
How so? We’re talking specifically about a TV only device that’s not more powerful than the base unit. The Lite offers increased durability, portability and color options over the base model for handheld only players. Arguably, for its core demo, the screen is even an upgrade.

What could a TV only Switch offer TV only players beyond cost?
 
Quoted by: TLZ
1
ReddDreadtheLead said:
People that buy a game like that don’t care about a new shiny console day 1 except for the people on a forum.

Don’t kid yourself. There’s no kneecapping.

While I’m not on team 23, this is like saying “why would Nintendo kneecap Animal Crossing by having a console release a month later” like what

If it was TOTK, sure. There could be that. But this is a complete different game that appeals to a different much more casual market.
Click to expand...

“Please buy our big holiday game, Super Mario Bros. Wonder” is a bit different than “Please buy our new console and also this crusty game for the old hardware.” I’m not saying it would tank it, but it would lessen its impact.
 
ngpdrew said:
“Please buy our big holiday game, Super Mario Bros. Wonder” is a bit different than “Please buy our new console and also this crusty game for the old hardware.” I’m not saying it would tank it, but it would lessen its impact.
Click to expand...
How would the game be crusty, it’s an entirely new game.


The main adopters of new consoles are the core audiences, the popularity of said console is entirely dependent on said core audience habits. The core brings the casual because the core is so loud it attracts the casuals, and this has worked for PlayStation for decades.


Casuals, the ones that predominately would be getting this game, wouldn’t move on unless given a reason to move on that justifies spending 400 dollars. They are more price sensitive. If they have to weigh 60 dollars vs 460 dollars, they’ll go for 60 dollars because they are given the option to do so.

It’s like expecting Pokémon fans to move on to the successor, Pokémon fans would be fine with a PowerPoint presentation and all the Pokémon on the screen moving at 7FPS. They aren’t the core market that they need to jumpstart the new platform, why? Because they don’t care for that stuff.


Super Mario Wonder is not the game to use for that example, as I said the game to use is TOTK. That has a very different appeal to it.


Once there’s a game that straight requires them to purchase the new system, they have no option. They’ll start asking “is this worth it? What are people saying? Generally positive? Good enough for me”

Or heck, they ignore it, “oh a new Mario? Oh I need a new console? Good enough for me”
 
After the most recent direct, I'm firmly in team 2024. There's still an outside chance they announce it later this year and release it before end of FY.

More likely, they will announce it early next year or around June for a summer/fall release.
 
Last edited:
karmitt said:
Literally the same for the vast majority of consumers outside of initial costs, which we cannot assume anything about.

Given you disagree, pray tell what is so different about it?
Click to expand...

oldpuck said:
How so? We’re talking specifically about a TV only device that’s not more powerful than the base unit. The Lite offers increased durability, portability and color options over the base model for handheld only players. Arguably, for its core demo, the screen is even an upgrade.

What could a TV only Switch offer TV only players beyond cost?
Click to expand...
Why would a TV only Switch be exactly the same as a docked Switch? It's not hampered by mobility limitations; I.e. smaller space. More breathing area, a better cooling system, meaning it can have more cores and higher clocks. It can also have more RAM and bandwidth. All these limitations in a portable confinement can be broken on a stationary console. You can also have enough space for nvme if you like.
 
Late 2024 announcement, early 2025 release. I feel it'll parallel the Switch launch and I'd be shocked if it's any earlier than that... Simultaneously, I'll be shocked if it's any later.
 
0
I honestly do not see Nintendo releasing thr Switch 2 in 2025. How old would be Drake by then?

Otherwise, my Zelda OLED investment would have lasted two years 🤭
 
TLZ said:
Why would a TV only Switch be exactly the same as a docked Switch? It's not hampered by mobility limitations; I.e. smaller space. More breathing area, a better cooling system, meaning it can have more cores and higher clocks. It can also have more RAM and bandwidth. All these limitations in a portable confinement can be broken on a stationary console. You can also have enough space for nvme if you like.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, are you talking about a budget TV-only Switch or a TV-only Switch Pro?

For a budget TV-only Switch - it would need to have the same basic specs as the standard Switch to make sense from a marketing perspective. If you offer better specs than a standard Switch, you devalue the primary product.

For a TV-only Switch-pro - it's not enough to make more powerful hardware; you also need games that are designed to use it. That's a whole lot of extra work for the developers, for a potentially small audience. And, again, you risk devaluing the primary product by detracting from its messaging that it offers the same experience at home or on the go.
 
What do y'all think y'all are doing?

courage-the-cowardly-dog-slipper.gif
 
P4bl0 said:


What about this ? The tweet is from a reputable japanese reporter so I assume his translation is correct
Click to expand...

I decided to look into this a bit more since I've been confused about this for a while since the slide itself doesn't specifically mention consoles. Disclaimer: not great at Japanese, not native, grain of salt, blah blah blah.

So to start, the slide did not specifically say a new game console, it said "Launch of new models meant for VR and games" and was changed to "Expansion of VR business". The tweet says the quote in the Bloomberg article was in response to the president being asked during the meeting if it can be described as "displays for new game consoles" rather than "new displays for game consoles" and in the article the president is quoted as saying they've "been involved since the R&D stage" for a new model of game console and is said to have stated that they have plans to start up a pilot production line for LCD panels for a new console. (Note: what part I quoted is exactly how it's quoted in the Japanese article, it's slightly different from how it's quoted in the English article).

So is Sharp working on displays for a new "console"? Sounds like yes. Is it the New Switch 2 Pro Advance SP Jungle Green edition? ...Maybe? "Console" in Japanese is literally just "game machine" and the same word can be used for Project Q although Sony themselves seems to only call it a peripheral or device.
 
ReddDreadtheLead said:
How would the game be crusty, it’s an entirely new game.


The main adopters of new consoles are the core audiences, the popularity of said console is entirely dependent on said core audience habits. The core brings the casual because the core is so loud it attracts the casuals, and this has worked for PlayStation for decades.


Casuals, the ones that predominately would be getting this game, wouldn’t move on unless given a reason to move on that justifies spending 400 dollars. They are more price sensitive. If they have to weigh 60 dollars vs 460 dollars, they’ll go for 60 dollars because they are given the option to do so.

It’s like expecting Pokémon fans to move on to the successor, Pokémon fans would be fine with a PowerPoint presentation and all the Pokémon on the screen moving at 7FPS. They aren’t the core market that they need to jumpstart the new platform, why? Because they don’t care for that stuff.


Super Mario Wonder is not the game to use for that example, as I said the game to use is TOTK. That has a very different appeal to it.


Once there’s a game that straight requires them to purchase the new system, they have no option. They’ll start asking “is this worth it? What are people saying? Generally positive? Good enough for me”

Or heck, they ignore it, “oh a new Mario? Oh I need a new console? Good enough for me”
Click to expand...
”Crusty” was just a joke about how enthusiasts would describe a new game on lesser hardware.

I don’t really disagree with anything you said (kneecap was an extreme turn of phrase, though I do think it would dull its impact slightly), but it doesn’t really make much of a case for new hardware. Wonder is clearly a huge game. Why would they release it a month (or even just a few weeks (or day and date with)) before their big new console drops? Why wouldn’t they make it a launch title to help move units?

Announcing your big holiday title (which this is, indisputably, despite some of the arguments to the contrary) and most of your holiday lineup seems like the kind of thing a company absolutely does not do if they are going to turn around and reveal new hardware a month later.
 
ngpdrew said:
”Crusty” was just a joke about how enthusiasts would describe a new game on lesser hardware.

I don’t really disagree with anything you said (kneecap was an extreme turn of phrase, though I do think it would dull its impact slightly), but it doesn’t really make much of a case for new hardware. Wonder is clearly a huge game. Why would they release it a month (or even just a few weeks (or day and date with)) before their big new console drops? Why wouldn’t they make it a launch title to help move units?

Announcing your big holiday title (which this is, indisputably, despite some of the arguments to the contrary) and most of your holiday lineup seems like the kind of thing a company absolutely does not do if they are going to turn around and reveal new hardware a month later.
Click to expand...
yep. last week Nintendo got up on stage and screamed IT'S NOT COMING! it's up to us to listen
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please read this staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited:


Back
Top Bottom