News: New Nintendo Games Platform is Codenamed NX Page 1

jb 17.03.2015#1

I think they need to directly leverage smartphones as part of the new home console:

- An optimised, value Nintendo player that has decent CPU/graphical capabilities

- A primarily touch-screen based controller that's smaller than the GamePad - so around the size of a regular phone.

- Option to connect phones (via Bluetooth) to use as a controller, which should bring costs down significantly.

- Unified Nintendo account that's accessible on the console, portable, smartphone and through a browser.

- Plenty of media options - playback, streaming services that aren't present in the Wii U.

- Consider using Android marketplace (or at least selected Android games) as part of the system - i.e. to filter out emulators etc. Though hackers/coders would be able to get in quite easily I'm sure.

Cubed3 Admin/Founder & Designer

Luna Eriksson 17.03.2015#2

I do not like the sound of this. I do not like the "timing" of the reveal either. Something tells me Smart devices will be used tightly with this and I don't like that.

As long as the gameplay is designed for use of touchscreen so is it fine, but if it starts to be filled with virtual controllers in game so am I going to get sincerely pissed.

The difference between illusion and reality is vague to the one who suffers from the former and questionable for the one suffering form the later.

crackedthesky 17.03.2015#3

Nintendo has almost always included backward compatibility. This could be a problem for Wii U's successor, if Nintendo doesn't want to be tied to an expensive second screen for another generation.

Doesn't it make sense to have their next console have a GamePad-like controller for those who want it, but have the ability to stream to any smartphone for those who don't? Having a dedicated controller like the Wii U Pro is something a lot of developers want Nintendo to aim for because it makes the load lighter on them, and then devs who want to take advantage of second-screen abilities can still do so anyway (Ubisoft does this often already).

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com

darkflame (guest) 17.03.2015#4

Not enough small step forward please.

Partner with Microsoft(Hololens) or Google (MagicLeap). Be the first major videogame system to embrace AR as a primary system selling point.

It could be massively new and awesome in the homemarket, even if it isnt quite ready for portables yet.

Media options and everything else is secondary to gaming. Give us a gaming revolution. Give us another step towards a holodeck experience while everyone is is focused on graphics, power, and home-hub stuff.

crackedthesky 17.03.2015#5

darkflame (guest) said:
Not enough small step forward please.
Partner with Microsoft(Hololens) or Google (MagicLeap). Be the first major videogame system to embrace AR as a primary system selling point.
It could be massively new and awesome in the homemarket, even if it isnt quite ready for portables yet.
Media options and everything else is secondary to gaming. Give us a gaming revolution. Give us another step towards a holodeck experience while everyone is is focused on graphics, power, and home-hub stuff.

I think this is a terrible idea. AR is a fad, it's going to be the next Wii remote. Everybody will be all over it for a year or two, and then it'll plummet. It's just not feasible as a long-term idea; it didn't work with the Virtual Boy, it didn't work as built-in glasses-free 3D for the 3DS, it's not going to work as a $200 headache-inducing, single-user, clunky peripheral. Basing an entire console on it is asking for failure, especially since the Rift, Morpheus, Hololens, and everything else will have been out for years by the time Nintendo's next console launches.

Besides, introducing something that pricey and only available to one player at a time as a core feature of the system means Nintendo has to either abandon some of their most successful multiplayer franchises (Super Smash, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario in general) or else disown their own idea and not use it in their biggest games.

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com

curtiscdragon 17.03.2015#6

Whoaaa........good or bad the future is now with the "NX" ..... Smilie

darkflame (guest) 17.03.2015#7

I think this is a terrible idea. AR is a fad, it's going to be the next Wii remote.

In your view thats not backed up by anything.
In my view, seeing virtual stuff in the real world is fantastic. Turn the lights of and your got VR as well.

Pokemon in real life, Minecraft on your desk.
Or, better yet, brand new games it makes possible.
Zombie invasion in your actual house.

If you dont think thats cool, well, thats up to you, but the idea that it cant be awesome shows very little imagination.

Also, the Wii is one of the best selling consoles in history.

it didn't work as built-in glasses-free 3D for the 3DS,

Lots of people love the 3D on the 3DS, and the system sales great.
Not as good as the DS did, sure, but you cant say "didnt work" as if its a fact.
Clearly worked well enough for Nintendo to improve it with headtracking on the new model anyway.

it's not going to work as a $200 headache-inducing, single-user, clunky peripheral.

You have been believing propaganda I see.
Do you still think the 3DS makes people vomit like the Daily Mail claimed?

Single user is a fair point, mind. But then sadly online has taken over from local player anyway.

Also, my point is it would be the system, not a peripheral. Lots of consoles cost $500 at launch.

Basing an entire console on it is asking for failure, especially since the Rift, Morpheus, Hololens, and everything else will have been out for years by the time Nintendo's next console launches.

a) Plenty of time to learn from them. Hell, if those things are successful NOT doing it will be backwards step.

b) The Rift is VR not AR (why do people get those two mixed up?)

Besides, introducing something that pricey and only available to one player at a time as a core feature of the system means Nintendo has to either abandon some of their most successful multiplayer franchises (Super Smash, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario in general) or else disown their own idea and not use it in their biggest games.

Or, you know, let people bring it around eachothers houses and network.
Or for some games allow it plugged into the TV.
Or just play online.

The point is about NEW games anyway, or at least fresh spins. Micromachines style racing around your furniture, smash broths on your desk. Those things sound great fun to me.

And yes, I love playing with friends in real life. With AR thats still an option (unlike the Rift). There just needs to be decent networking - like people play 3DS's together.

Edit this post:

[quote][b] [/b]
I think this is a terrible idea. AR is a fad, it's going to be the next Wii remote.[/quote]

In your view thats not backed up by anything.
In my view, seeing virtual stuff in the real world is fantastic. Turn the lights of and your got VR as well.

Pokemon in real life, Minecraft on your desk.
Or, better yet, brand new games it makes possible.
Zombie invasion in your actual house.

If you dont think thats cool, well, thats up to you, but the idea that it cant be awesome shows very little imagination.

Also, the Wii is one of the best selling consoles in history.

[quote]
it didn't work as built-in glasses-free 3D for the 3DS,
[/quote]

Lots of people love the 3D on the 3DS, and the system sales great.
Not as good as the DS did, sure, but you cant say "didnt work" as if its a fact.
Clearly worked well enough for Nintendo to improve it with headtracking on the new model anyway.

[quote]it's not going to work as a $200 headache-inducing, single-user, clunky peripheral. [/quote]

You have been believing propaganda I see.
Do you still think the 3DS makes people vomit like the Daily Mail claimed?

Single user is a fair point, mind. But then sadly online has taken over from local player anyway.

Also, my point is it would be the system, not a peripheral.  Lots of consoles cost $500 at launch.

[quote]
Basing an entire console on it is asking for failure, especially since the Rift, Morpheus, Hololens, and everything else will have been out for years by the time Nintendo's next console launches.
[/quote]

a) Plenty of time to learn from them. Hell, if those things are successful NOT doing it will be backwards step.

b) The Rift is VR not AR (why do people get those two mixed up?)

[quote]
Besides, introducing something that pricey and only available to one player at a time as a core feature of the system means Nintendo has to either abandon some of their most successful multiplayer franchises (Super Smash, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario in general) or else disown their own idea and not use it in their biggest games.[/quote]

Or, you know, let people bring it around eachothers houses and network.
Or for some games allow it plugged into the TV.
Or just play online.

The point is about NEW games anyway, or at least fresh spins. Micromachines style racing around your furniture, smash broths on your desk. Those things sound great fun to me.

And yes, I love playing with friends in real life. With AR thats still an option (unlike the Rift). There just needs to be decent networking - like people play 3DS's together.

Save Changes Cancel Full Edit

jb 17.03.2015#8

I think Smartphones as controllers does have some weight - I think Nintendo should have a smaller Wii U pro-type controller with a touchscreen in the middle - what I had hoped the GamePad would have been.

One example was this drawing game we played whilst friends were around - not sure of the name - but we all just used our smartphones, BUT the TV was used as the interface/showing the results of our drawings. Really enjoyed it - it captialises on the fact that most people have a compatible device, and still had the social element with the TV.

Cubed3 Admin/Founder & Designer

crackedthesky 17.03.2015#9

darkflame (guest) said:
In your view thats not backed up by anything.
In my view, seeing virtual stuff in the real world is fantastic. Turn the lights of and your got VR as well.

I did say "I think" after all. Yes, most of this is conjecture and opinion.

That said, it's backed up by history. We've seen technological advancements in gaming before, and every single one so far that has "revolutionized" the way people play has been utterly overblown and eventually faded into obscurity, with only aspects of it surviving to enhance the market. We've even seen VR before (Virtual Boy, for example) and it was a miserable failure. Yes, the stuff they're doing now is much higher quality than that, but do you really think a $200-$400 isolation chamber is the future of the industry? Yes, there will undoubtedly be some amazing games and concepts that come from this, but there's no reason to believe it's going to replace a screen and controller as the norm.

Pokemon in real life, Minecraft on your desk.
Or, better yet, brand new games it makes possible.
Zombie invasion in your actual house.
If you dont think thats cool, well, thats up to you, but the idea that it cant be awesome shows very little imagination.

I'm not saying it isn't cool, I'm saying it's not going to be important enough to make a core aspect of a console moving forward. I mean, the 3DS has QR code-based AR built in, and almost no games use it. Because it's a fad. It's an idea that looks cool on paper, usually churns out a few great ideas, and otherwise gets cumbersome and impractical for a variety of reasons.

Also, the Wii is one of the best selling consoles in history.

Absolutely! And it also had one of the biggest dropoff rates in video game history. Meanwhile the Kinect and the Playstation Move were almost colossal failures because they launched after everyone was already tired of motion control, which is almost certainly what will happen if Nintendo jumps on the AR bandwagon starting with their next console that won't release until late 2017 at the very earliest.

Lots of people love the 3D on the 3DS, and the system sales great.
Not as good as the DS did, sure, but you cant say "didnt work" as if its a fact.
Clearly worked well enough for Nintendo to improve it with headtracking on the new model anyway.

I didn't mean it didn't work in terms of sales, I mean it didn't work as a core feature of the system. Most people turn it off, to the point where it became profitable for Nintendo to remove it entirely from one line of the system. 3D was a huge fad in movies, the 3DS came out at the tail end of that, and because of it the 3D feature went mostly ignored. It's a cool gimmick, but if it had been required, the 3DS would've flopped hard. If Nintendo approaches AR in their next console like that, then sure, that's a very smart move. But if they hinge the whole console on it, I think they're in for a world of hurt.

You have been believing propaganda I see.
Do you still think the 3DS makes people vomit like the Daily Mail claimed?

No, I'm referring to the countless studies that show 3D gives people headaches, as well as personal experience. Also, to make a whole console into a helmet it would have to weigh a decent amount, probably more than most people are going to want on their neck and shoulders for more than an hour at a time.

Single user is a fair point, mind. But then sadly online has taken over from local player anyway.

For the most part, yes, but not for Nintendo. One of the remaining highlights of their consoles is the strong multiplayer support. I don't see them greatly benefiting from taking that away.

Also, my point is it would be the system, not a peripheral. Lots of consoles cost $500 at launch.

The GamePad is so costly, Nintendo had to scrap efforts to include support for two of them, and having one break is an utter nightmare. You really want them to repeat that with something that costs $500 instead of $150?

a) Plenty of time to learn from them. Hell, if those things are successful NOT doing it will be backwards step.
b) The Rift is VR not AR (why do people get those two mixed up?)

Like I said, they should absolutely be including some kind of support in their next console; my issue is in making that the entire basis of it.

I thought we were talking about both.

Or, you know, let people bring it around eachothers houses and network.
Or for some games allow it plugged into the TV.
Or just play online.

Again, one of Nintendo's strongest selling points is in their party games. People don't want to lug $500 hardware around (at least, Nintendo's general user base, families, don't). I mean, that's the same argument people made for removing local multiplayer in the first place, and look how that turned out. It's really not easy to lug your PS4 or Xbox One over to a friend's house and hook everything up to their extra TV and cable router for multiplayer gaming. A VR headset might be somewhat simpler, but I don't see a VR headset being the entire console, ever. Not enough space for heat displacement, game storage/media playback, etc.

The point is about NEW games anyway, or at least fresh spins. Micromachines style racing around your furniture, smash broths on your desk. Those things sound great fun to me.

I don't think the technology is really there yet, and that'd be one hell of an impressive leap for not very big of a payoff. There are just too many variables involved, like lighting, object placement, what happens if your dog runs across the track and the game has to completely re-calculate the course, etc. This kind of thing works best as the type of minigames found on the 3DS. Yeah, they're cool. No, they're not the future of gaming.

And yes, I love playing with friends in real life. With AR thats still an option (unlike the Rift). There just needs to be decent networking - like people play 3DS's together.

So we're talking about a headset that's also an entire console but also needs to be portable enough to network with others? That thing would be too big to wear. AR and VR headsets work as peripherals, not entire consoles. It's just not going to happen. If it were, I'll give you that Nintendo would be the company to do it, since they tend to make small, efficient hardware without caring about the graphical capabilities, but I just don't see it being their big move. A peripheral for a home console, sure, but the home console itself? That's messy in all kinds of ways. Not very portable, not backwards compatible, not family-friendly, not easy to market, no massive appeal, completely alienates those who aren't into the idea of AR/VR, the list goes on.

Edit this post:

[quote][b]darkflame (guest) said:[/b]<br/>

In your view thats not backed up by anything.
In my view, seeing virtual stuff in the real world is fantastic. Turn the lights of and your got VR as well.[/quote]

I did say "I think" after all. Yes, most of this is conjecture and opinion.

That said, it's backed up by history. We've seen technological advancements in gaming before, and every single one so far that has "revolutionized" the way people play has been utterly overblown and eventually faded into obscurity, with only aspects of it surviving to enhance the market. We've even seen VR before (Virtual Boy, for example) and it was a miserable failure. Yes, the stuff they're doing now is much higher quality than that, but do you really think a $200-$400 isolation chamber is the future of the industry? Yes, there will undoubtedly be some amazing games and concepts that come from this, but there's no reason to believe it's going to replace a screen and controller as the norm.

[quote]Pokemon in real life, Minecraft on your desk.
Or, better yet, brand new games it makes possible.
Zombie invasion in your actual house.

If you dont think thats cool, well, thats up to you, but the idea that it cant be awesome shows very little imagination.[/quote]

I'm not saying it isn't cool, I'm saying it's not going to be important enough to make a core aspect of a console moving forward. I mean, the 3DS has QR code-based AR built in, and almost no games use it. Because it's a fad. It's an idea that looks cool on paper, usually churns out a few great ideas, and otherwise gets cumbersome and impractical for a variety of reasons.

[quote]Also, the Wii is one of the best selling consoles in history.[/quote]

Absolutely! And it also had one of the biggest dropoff rates in video game history. Meanwhile the Kinect and the Playstation Move were almost colossal failures because they launched after everyone was already tired of motion control, which is almost certainly what will happen if Nintendo jumps on the AR bandwagon starting with their next console that won't release until late 2017 at the very earliest.

[quote]
Lots of people love the 3D on the 3DS, and the system sales great.
Not as good as the DS did, sure, but you cant say "didnt work" as if its a fact.
Clearly worked well enough for Nintendo to improve it with headtracking on the new model anyway.[/quote]

I didn't mean it didn't work in terms of sales, I mean it didn't work as a core feature of the system. Most people turn it off, to the point where it became profitable for Nintendo to remove it entirely from one line of the system. 3D was a huge fad in movies, the 3DS came out at the tail end of that, and because of it the 3D feature went mostly ignored. It's a cool gimmick, but if it had been required, the 3DS would've flopped hard. If Nintendo approaches AR in their next console like that, then sure, that's a very smart move. But if they hinge the whole console on it, I think they're in for a world of hurt.

[quote]
You have been believing propaganda I see.
Do you still think the 3DS makes people vomit like the Daily Mail claimed? 
[/quote]

No, I'm referring to the countless studies that show 3D gives people headaches, as well as personal experience. Also, to make a whole console into a helmet it would have to weigh a decent amount, probably more than most people are going to want on their neck and shoulders for more than an hour at a time.

[quote]Single user is a fair point, mind. But then sadly online has taken over from local player anyway.[/quote]

For the most part, yes, but not for Nintendo. One of the remaining highlights of their consoles is the strong multiplayer support. I don't see them greatly benefiting from taking that away.

[quote]Also, my point is it would be the system, not a peripheral.  Lots of consoles cost $500 at launch.[/quote]

The GamePad is so costly, Nintendo had to scrap efforts to include support for two of them, and having one break is an utter nightmare. You really want them to repeat that with something that costs $500 instead of $150?

[quote]a) Plenty of time to learn from them. Hell, if those things are successful NOT doing it will be backwards step.

b) The Rift is VR not AR (why do people get those two mixed up?)[/quote]

Like I said, they should absolutely be including some kind of support in their next console; my issue is in making that the entire basis of it.

I thought we were talking about both.

[quote]Or, you know, let people bring it around eachothers houses and network.
Or for some games allow it plugged into the TV.
Or just play online.
[/quote]

Again, one of Nintendo's strongest selling points is in their party games. People don't want to lug $500 hardware around (at least, Nintendo's general user base, families, don't). I mean, that's the same argument people made for removing local multiplayer in the first place, and look how that turned out. It's really not easy to lug your PS4 or Xbox One over to a friend's house and hook everything up to their extra TV and cable router for multiplayer gaming. A VR headset might be somewhat simpler, but I don't see a VR headset being the entire console, ever. Not enough space for heat displacement, game storage/media playback, etc.

[quote]The point is about NEW games anyway, or at least fresh spins. Micromachines style racing around your furniture, smash broths on your desk. Those things sound great fun to me.[/quote]

I don't think the technology is really there yet, and that'd be one hell of an impressive leap for not very big of a payoff. There are just too many variables involved, like lighting, object placement, what happens if your dog runs across the track and the game has to completely re-calculate the course, etc. This kind of thing works best as the type of minigames found on the 3DS. Yeah, they're cool. No, they're not the future of gaming.

[quote]And yes, I love playing with friends in real life. With AR thats still an option (unlike the Rift). There just needs to be decent networking - like people play 3DS's together.
[/quote]

So we're talking about a headset that's also an entire console but also needs to be portable enough to network with others? That thing would be too big to wear. AR and VR headsets work as peripherals, not entire consoles. It's just not going to happen. If it were, I'll give you that Nintendo would be the company to do it, since they tend to make small, efficient hardware without caring about the graphical capabilities, but I just don't see it being their big move. A peripheral for a home console, sure, but the home console itself? That's messy in all kinds of ways. Not very portable, not backwards compatible, not family-friendly, not easy to market, no massive appeal, completely alienates those who aren't into the idea of AR/VR, the list goes on.

Save Changes Cancel Full Edit

NNID: crackedthesky
My blog, mostly about writing: http://www.davidjlovato.com

Sonic_13 17.03.2015#10

Andre Eriksson said:
I do not like the sound of this. I do not like the "timing" of the reveal either. Something tells me Smart devices will be used tightly with this and I don't like that..

The full quote from Iwata was something like "I don't want people to think smartphones are going to be our focus or the major part of our business now, so I'm announcing we are working on our next dedicated system, codenamed NX"

Flynnie 17.03.2015#11

It's sad that all we expect from Nintendo are gimmicks and so called revolutions. Innovation is key to differentiate yourself from the competitors but at the same time it has alienated others too. I'd say that worldwide there's a 20 million people loyal Nintendo fan base that will buy their stuff no matter what, that's a tiny smidgen of the games market.

Hopefully we'll see a little more traditional focus this time around with a few cool features as secondary innovations.

( Edited 17.03.2015 20:57 by Flynnie )

Luna Eriksson 17.03.2015#12

Sonic_13 said:
Andre Eriksson said:
I do not like the sound of this. I do not like the "timing" of the reveal either. Something tells me Smart devices will be used tightly with this and I don't like that..
The full quote from Iwata was something like "I don't want people to think smartphones are going to be our focus or the major part of our business now, so I'm announcing we are working on our next dedicated system, codenamed NX"

What Nintendo say and what Nintendo do has too often been separate things lately. First they would never do DLC. They did, yet it was good. Then they would never do games for a non Nintendo system.. We saw what happened to that today, didn't we? Point is that what they say and the reality that is the true outcome might very well be separate ones for some reasons. So far Nintendo have done very good decisions in my opinion, but there is something I do smell a fishy aroma from around this.

The difference between illusion and reality is vague to the one who suffers from the former and questionable for the one suffering form the later.

Sonic_13 17.03.2015#13

Andre Eriksson said:
Sonic_13 said:
Andre Eriksson said:
I do not like the sound of this. I do not like the "timing" of the reveal either. Something tells me Smart devices will be used tightly with this and I don't like that..
The full quote from Iwata was something like "I don't want people to think smartphones are going to be our focus or the major part of our business now, so I'm announcing we are working on our next dedicated system, codenamed NX"

What Nintendo say and what Nintendo do has too often been separate things lately. First they would never do DLC. They did, yet it was good. Then they would never do games for a non Nintendo system.. We saw what happened to that today, didn't we? Point is that what they say and the reality that is the true outcome might very well be separate ones for some reasons. So far Nintendo have done very good decisions in my opinion, but there is something I do smell a fishy aroma from around this.

Actually this announcement is right in line with what Nintendo and Iwata has been saying for a while:
"We feel that simply releasing our games just as they are on smart devices would not provide the best entertainment for smart devices, so we are not going to take any approach of this nature"

"...in the current environment surrounding smart devices, we feel that we will not be able to gain the support of many consumers unless we are able to provide something truly valuable that is unique to Nintendo. Accordingly, I have not given any restrictions to the development team, even not ruling out the possibility of making games or using our game characters."
http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/29/5359546/iwata-emphatic-no-plans-to-move-games-to-non-nintendo-platforms
http://www.cnet.com/news/nintendo-to-experiment-with-mobile-mini-games-report-says/
"Fils-Aime sees giving consumers 'a little taste of a Nintendo experience," something that will "drive you back to your Nintendo hardware for the full blown experience.'"
http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/18/5222212/nintendo-experimenting-with-smartphones-tablets

Regarding DLC, they were quote as saying things such as wanting to make sure people feel they are getting a full complete experience from their game before even considering DLC.
"Now, in addition, if we want to make other things available, great, and we'll look at that. But we're unwilling to sell a piece of a game upfront and, if you will, force a consumer to buy more later."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-17-why-nintendo-isnt-interested-in-paid-dlc

( Edited 17.03.2015 23:08 by Sonic_13 )

Edit this post:

[quote][b]Andre Eriksson said:[/b]<br/>[quote][b]Sonic_13 said:[/b]<br/>[quote][b]Andre Eriksson said:[/b]<br/>I do not like the sound of this. I do not like the "timing" of the reveal either. Something tells me Smart devices will be used tightly with this and I don't like that..[/quote]

The full quote from Iwata was something like "I don't want people to think smartphones are going to be our focus or the major part of our business now, so I'm announcing we are working on our next dedicated system, codenamed NX"[/quote]
What Nintendo say and what Nintendo do has too often been separate things lately. First they would never do DLC. They did, yet it was good. Then they would never do games for a non Nintendo system.. We saw what happened to that today, didn't we? Point is that what they say and the reality that is the true outcome might very well be separate ones for some reasons. So far Nintendo have done very good decisions in my opinion, but there is something I do smell a fishy aroma from around this.[/quote]

Actually this announcement is right in line with what Nintendo and Iwata has been saying for a while:
"[color=#000000]We feel that simply releasing our games just as they are on smart devices would not provide the best entertainment for smart devices, so we are not going to take any approach of this nature"[/color]

"...[color=#000000]in the current environment surrounding smart devices, we feel that we will not be able to gain the support of many consumers unless we are able to provide something truly valuable that is unique to Nintendo. Accordingly, I have not given any restrictions to the development team, even not ruling out the possibility of making games or using our game characters."[/color]
http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/29/5359546/iwata-emphatic-no-plans-to-move-games-to-non-nintendo-platforms
http://www.cnet.com/news/nintendo-to-experiment-with-mobile-mini-games-report-says/
"[color=#000000]Fils-Aime sees giving consumers 'a little taste of a Nintendo experience," something that will "drive you back to your Nintendo hardware for the full blown experience.'"[/color]
http://www.polygon.com/2013/12/18/5222212/nintendo-experimenting-with-smartphones-tablets

Regarding DLC, they were quote as saying things such as wanting to make sure people feel they are getting a full complete experience from their game before even considering DLC.
"Now, in addition, if we want to make other things available, great, and we'll look at that. But we're unwilling to sell a piece of a game upfront and, if you will, force a consumer to buy more later."
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-17-why-nintendo-isnt-interested-in-paid-dlc

Save Changes Cancel Full Edit

Luna Eriksson 18.03.2015#14

That is NOT what they said some years earlier where they straight out said they would never do DLC. I know times changes, and that might simply be the case here too. I just do not want to be too optimistic and get turned down. I rather look at it with skepticism and be happily surprised like in the case of DLC (Nintendo has truly handled that exceptionally well and is I think setting the mark for what the rest of the industry should strive for both for profit and customer happiness). And they have said that they would never be a third party developer, yet not we see that they wedge out onto Smart Devices which might weaken their brand if titles gets released onto them instead of their consoles. I do think Nintendo might handle this in a miraculously fantastic way that is outside my realm of expectation as Nintendo has a fantastic way of being totally unpredictable and seeing great win/win situations where others solely sees scary risks. But I am still skeptical until proven otherwise.

I know times change, and I am not going to hold it against them (too much at least), but I am going to be skeptic about choices that I see can misfire heavily until proven otherwise. Smilie Just like I did with DLC. If I get proven wrong no one would be happier than me.