New Nintendo console to be announced at E3.

Scratched wrote:

"Capability"?

Yes — in addition to HD graphics, it also has the capability to print Yen.

http://www.develop-online.net/news/3...

'New controller acts as sensor bar, features 6" touch-screen', report claims

Nintendo’s successor to the Wii is built with a “custom IBM PowerPC with three cores”, an ATI-built GPU, and at least 512MB in memory, according to new unconfirmed reports.
...
The article adds that Project Cafe will have “similar architecture” to the Xbox 360 and could support GameCube and Wii games.

A reading of the French article, from a NeoGaf forum post, suggests that Project Cafe will “support all Wii peripherals”

The post added: “CPU is custom IBM PowerPC with three cores, GPU should be an ATI from the R700 family, with a shader unit at version 4.1. Ram should be at least 512 MB.

In more far-reaching speculation, the article goes on to suggest Project Cafe will feature a touch tablet controller, with moderate graphic output, its own 6-inch single touch screen, a front camera.

The CPU speculation is plausible, as the Wii is a PPC single core, so a relatively 'easy' upgrade there.

Well, that hardware spec is a slightly upgraded 360, seems a little weak for a new gen but workable. That controller speculation seems a little out there though.

I double post for next gen!

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Well, that hardware spec is a slightly upgraded 360, seems a little weak for a new gen but workable. That controller speculation seems a little out there though.

Have you guys heard about the Nintendo Revolution? According to rumors, it's only a slightly upgraded Gamecube, but it has a TV remote-shaped controller that you wave around. Sounds a little out there to me. There's no way it's real, because if any of this was true there's no way anyone would buy it.

Personally, I don't want a new console unless it offers a radically new experience. We've already got the 3DS and a PSP2 somewhere down the line. That's enough newness for me right now. That might just be because I can't afford anything new right now.

I'm a lot less interested in the hardware specs on this machine than I am in whatever new ideas it introduces to gaming.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I'm a lot less interested in the hardware specs on this machine than I am in whatever new ideas it introduces to gaming.

I said that about the Wii but the fact is that graphics do really matter to me, and in most cases have a significant impact to a game's enjoyability--and gameplay. As hit-and-miss as Nintendo has been for half a decade I need to be wooed senseless for them to make an impact on me.

MechaSlinky wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

Well, that hardware spec is a slightly upgraded 360, seems a little weak for a new gen but workable. That controller speculation seems a little out there though.

Have you guys heard about the Nintendo Revolution? According to rumors, it's only a slightly upgraded Gamecube, but it has a TV remote-shaped controller that you wave around. Sounds a little out there to me. There's no way it's real, because if any of this was true there's no way anyone would buy it.

Personally, I don't want a new console unless it offers a radically new experience. We've already got the 3DS and a PSP2 somewhere down the line. That's enough newness for me right now. That might just be because I can't afford anything new right now.

They played their card once. I doubt they're going to get the same kind of media attention with a Wii 2, or whatever it'll be. Crazier things have happened though. It's just weird to launch with such ancient hardware. My computer had 512 MB RAM in like 2001 or something.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I'm a lot less interested in the hardware specs on this machine than I am in whatever new ideas it introduces to gaming.

I am with you in general - I don't really need graphic power ramped up to get me interested in playing a game. Two problems, though: we are not typical; the difference between the Wii and the PS360 in terms of raw power made it almost impossible for publishers to support all three platforms. I think this is the biggest way Nintendo can help third party developers/publishers with their console - make it so that it can be easily ported to.

I hope that this new console has backwards compatibility, since the Wii (and Gamecube) have some excellent games, and I would rather not re-buy all of them. I hope it has enough power to pass by the PS360 in terms of graphics, with enough extra power to get the actual gameplay-changing elements added. I really hope they have at least a PS3 level of internet connectivity, with a unified Friend's List. If it has those things, and is a Wii2, I will happily buy it, but I suspect Nintendo has more planned.

Nintendo actually has a bit of an advantage by having the Wii not be as graphically impressive. I think Microsoft and Sony can only make marginal improvements in graphics, but they have a lot of room to improve load times, physics, networking, AI. The bad part is, all of these things don't make for good advertising copy. Graphics sell.

cyrax wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

I'm a lot less interested in the hardware specs on this machine than I am in whatever new ideas it introduces to gaming.

I said that about the Wii but the fact is that graphics do really matter to me, and in most cases have a significant impact to a game's enjoyability--and gameplay. As hit-and-miss as Nintendo has been for half a decade I need to be wooed senseless for them to make an impact on me.

I realize that everyone has different tastes, but I could never understand this. I haven't played a single game on the Wii that I've thought would have been improved with better graphics or fancier hardware.

Atras wrote:

Graphics sell.

People keep saying this, and yet the Wii and DS have handily out-sold their graphically superior cousins. Or is this the part where we start complaining that those Wiis and DSs weren't sold to real gamers?

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Atras wrote:

Graphics sell.

People keep saying this, and yet the Wii and DS have handily out-sold their graphically superior cousins. Or is this the part where we start complaining that those Wiis and DSs weren't sold to real gamers?

Right, there is that... eyeroll.

What I meant, and should have said better, was that it is easy to market flashy new graphics, and not easy to market better AI.

Atras wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
Atras wrote:

Graphics sell.

People keep saying this, and yet the Wii and DS have handily out-sold their graphically superior cousins. Or is this the part where we start complaining that those Wiis and DSs weren't sold to real gamers?

Right, there is that... eyeroll.

What I meant, and should have said better, was that it is easy to market flashy new graphics, and not easy to market better AI.

I'm not too worried about Nintendo's fiscal wellbeing:
IMAGE(http://www.3dsview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/3DS-It-Prints-Money.gif)

Atras wrote:

Nintendo actually has a bit of an advantage by having the Wii not be as graphically impressive. I think Microsoft and Sony can only make marginal improvements in graphics, but they have a lot of room to improve load times, physics, networking, AI. The bad part is, all of these things don't make for good advertising copy. Graphics sell.

Have you seen the Battlefield 3 trailers? I think that's more than marginal increases over current console. Wide 1080p level GPU support alone will make things noticeable.

But I agree, the next gen is about much more than graphics. I think in addition to all you listed, I think it's also about being better media portals. I'm still surprised MS hasn't leveraged it's IP TV tech more to push closer toward legitimate cable box replacement status.

I don't buy the argument that better hardware will increase 3rd party support. Nintendo has had bad third party support since the N64. The Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2 and look what happened there.

The 3rd party problem for Nintendo has always been that Nintendo is too good at what they do. If you release a third party game on a Microsoft system you essentially only have to compete against a couple average selling games and a monster in Halo. If you release a third party game on a Sony system, you compete against a slew of average selling games. However, if you release a third party game on a Nintendo system, you are going up against huge sellers.

Just look at Wii alone:
Mario Kart Wii 27.28 million
Wii Sports Resort 26.35 million
Wii Fit 22.61 million
NSMB Wii 21.28 million
Wii Fit Plus 17.74 million

not to mention a lot of people are happy with just playing Wii Sports which comes packed in.

I don't think any Microsoft or Sony first party games have even come close to breaking 14 million on any of their games. So if Nintendo says they want to go after the third party, they are going to have to take the approach they have taken with the 3DS; launch with no really compelling 1st party games to convince third party publishers that there is room for them.

Don't Sony and Microsoft also help advertise the hell out of their big 3rd party games though? I'm not sure if Nintendo does this or not but it doesn't seem like it.

hbi2k wrote:

Full backwards compatibility with Wii games. No GCN compatibility.

My first thought was "why would they break GC compatibility? It and the Wii have the same basic architecture? The Wii doesn't need an emulator to run GC games so whatever solution the new system uses for Wii games should work for GC games no problem."

Then I remembered that GC games require GC controllers, GC memory cards, and come on 3" disks. Any one of those could be a deal-breaker.

On a different note, I'm going to refer to this as the "Super Wii". For nostalgia's sake. I do like the idea of using "Wiii", but that would probably cause confusion.

MannishBoy wrote:
Atras wrote:

I think Microsoft and Sony can only make marginal improvements in graphics, but they have a lot of room to improve load times, physics, networking, AI.

I think that's more than marginal increases over current console. Wide 1080p level GPU support alone will make things noticeable.

There can be more improvements in the current gen, sure. But a trailer that looks nice is hardly worth spending 300-500 dollars on a new system, that might or might not be backwards compatible. I am not really convinced that graphics alone can justify a new console.

BNice wrote:

I don't buy the argument that better hardware will increase 3rd party support. Nintendo has had bad third party support since the N64. The Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2 and look what happened there.

That is a really good point. I am not sure that Nintendo being too good at what they do is the problem either, though. Activision didn't see Halo 3 sales and say: well, no point in making 2 more Call of Duty games on the 360, Microsoft has that all wrapped up. I guess I just don't understand why else third parties would not do as well, it can't be units sold, that's for sure.

Atras wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:
Atras wrote:

I think Microsoft and Sony can only make marginal improvements in graphics, but they have a lot of room to improve load times, physics, networking, AI.

I think that's more than marginal increases over current console. Wide 1080p level GPU support alone will make things noticeable.

There can be more improvements in the current gen, sure. But a trailer that looks nice is hardly worth spending 300-500 dollars on a new system, that might or might not be backwards compatible. I am not really convinced that graphics alone can justify a new console.

DICE, Epic, and others are both saying how they're concerned about how limiting the current gen HD hardware is. But I think you missed the rest of the stuff that we can't do as well in current gen that Bnice mentioned as well. More processing power means stuff like better AI, physics, destructibility/changing environments, networking (one of the things holding up the 64 player BF3 games on console), etc.

Current gen is getting a bit old. I'm ready to see what's next.

Whatever it is, I hope it has improved We Dare support!

BNice wrote:

The 3rd party problem for Nintendo has always been that Nintendo is too good at what they do.

Not quite. Yes Nintendo makes much more attractive games for the owners of their consoles. But Nintendo spent the entire NES and SNES lifecycles making insane demands of developers and publishers like limiting the number of games allowed to release on the platform, censorship, and exclusivity. Then the N64 came along and they trumpeted their 'dream team' and pretty much alienated most other developers. It's been a slow recovery since then. The N64/PS1 era made a huge chasm between Nintendo and the 3rd party. I just looked at a list of my N64 library and it shows how bad the 3rd party was on that platform when Turok 2 is the best 3rd party game I have, Rare being 2nd party.

cyrax wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

I'm a lot less interested in the hardware specs on this machine than I am in whatever new ideas it introduces to gaming.

I said that about the Wii but the fact is that graphics do really matter to me, and in most cases have a significant impact to a game's enjoyability--and gameplay. As hit-and-miss as Nintendo has been for half a decade I need to be wooed senseless for them to make an impact on me.

I tend to agree when it comes to the Wii. As much as I love Kirby's Epic Yarn I'd prefer to be playing it on an HD console. It's a beautiful game and I'd prefer if it were in HD.

Oh, and the other thing I'm concerned about with all of this is that the PS3 has yet reached it's potential. It's supposed to reach it's potential in 2015. It's not time yet.

http://yearoftheps3.info/

I'm all for improving the hardware of the next generation. Games are already fairly pretty and I don't care if they get prettier, however this current generation is already starting to show it's age with the more open world games. Oblivion got rid of levitation because that would let you see an entire city at once, which couldn't work because cities needed to be loaded separately. I believe I remember reading that Red Faction Guerrila was pushing right up against what the Xbox 360 could handle in terms of number of buildings and physics complexity.

I am 100% for anything that will give me larger, more realistic open world gameplay.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Whatever it is, I hope it has improved We Dare support!

Corporal-Punishment-Mote

Yonder wrote:

I am 100% for anything that will give me larger, more realistic open world gameplay.

This is a good point. If the resources of new hardware are put to bear on better AI and better physics I'd be all for the next generation. I don't get the impression that's the case, but I could go for that.

DSGamer wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I am 100% for anything that will give me larger, more realistic open world gameplay.

This is a good point. If the resources of new hardware are put to bear on better AI and better physics I'd be all for the next generation. I don't get the impression that's the case, but I could go for that.

How abuot a game like Far Cry 2 made without constant guard post respawns?

DSGamer wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I am 100% for anything that will give me larger, more realistic open world gameplay.

This is a good point. If the resources of new hardware are put to bear on better AI and better physics I'd be all for the next generation. I don't get the impression that's the case, but I could go for that.

That's the big side benefit you get on PC with modern graphics cards. Why would it not be useful to console devs?

It's only been used sparingly as a lot of PC games are console ports these days, but I think it has huge potential to increase immersion levels.

MannishBoy wrote:

It's only been used sparingly as a lot of PC games are console ports these days, but I think it has huge potential to increase immersion levels.

Exactly. I'm not much of a console gamer, but since most games are cross platform these days if the Consoles don't have the resources to do something the PC guys don't get it either.

Spoiler:

I'm not bitter about Oblivion taking away levitation AT ALL.

Filthy skimmer checking in.

This is what troubles me:

IGN wrote:

Game Informer first reported that the console is capable of running games at "HD resolutions." Our sources have said the the console is significantly more powerful than the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, and that Nintendo's intent is to recapture the hardcore market. Another source said it is capable of 1080p resolutions.

Recapture the hardcore market? I'm not sure they can use that terminology since I can't remember a time when there was a hardcore and non-hardcore market that they actually didn't go after the latter instead of the former.

Also, by making it comparable to current-gen systems control-wise, doesn't that make the Wii controls an issue if this is to be a follow-up and not a second console? Would Nintendo have the guts to have two consoles out at the same time where the goal isn't to slowly move away from the Wii but to offer a Wii and Wii-alternate?

It's not that it wouldn't be useful to console devs. It's more of a question of if that's where they'd spend their resources.

DSGamer wrote:

It's not that it wouldn't be useful to console devs. It's more of a question of if that's where they'd spend their resources.

As funny as this vid is to me, I really don't want to see this in the next gen:

(And yes, that's PC footage. But of a game that's basically a console port.)