The comments about Nintendo consoles supposedly being weak are funny to me.
NES -> Powerhouse for its time.
SNES -> Powerhouse for its time.
N64 -> By far the most powerful for its time, big mistake was no CD.
Gamecube -> Again powerful for its time. More powerful than the PS2, not as powerful as Xbox.
Wii -> More powerful than Gamecube, but not as much of a jump as the Xbox 360 and PS3.

The Wii is the only time Nintendo hasn't released a formidable console. I'd say if Nintendo's next console is coming soon, Skyrim would be a very real possibility.

And yes, Nintendo WAS smart. Not many people had HDTVs when the Wii launched, and the price tag of the PS3 is unprecedented (no console has launched at that price and not flopped. In my opinion the PS3 wasn't worth that price, I'm glad I waited for it).

By the time their next console launches, they can have a formidable machine for a more reasonable price. It doesn't need to be top of the line. Consoles launching at $400+ is just stupid in my opinion.

It also doesn't say "And definitely not any others."

BGS doesn't seem to interested in motion controls, so I don't see it happening. Would I buy, a motion controlled TES spin off, well yes, yes I would.

Skullcruseher: If you're implying Zelda is difficult or for advlts... It's a very well rounded franchise, but the games are neither difficult or geared towards a specific audience.

I don't think they told us Oblivion was gonna be on PS3 at first...

Well if the question was "Will Skyrim ever come out on a future Nintendo console that is so far unannounced, and at the current time of asking this question not even rumoured??"

And the response was

"Game is coming to PS3, 360 and PC",

then perhaps I would be more inclined to believe this. But seeing as that was not the question, and no-one from Bethesda has ever explicitly stated that the game is not coming out on and future Nintendo console, then it's still a valid question.

If Beth/Zenimax were to decide on this how much money would they have to give to Nintendo to do licensing and other things. I think they would be better off just focusing on the 3 consoles and making them as best as they possibly can. I'm not against a new audience though which Beth will reach if they do this and then again this whole Next Gen Nintendo is a rumor right now. I'm surprised that the Earthquake hasn't sent this project back half a year or longer if it's being done. The Wii is doing pretty well but it is a Dinosaur when compared to the 360, PS3 or PC. The Next Gen for Nintendo is certainly very possible although I hope this doesn't mean that Microsoft and Sony are forced to start working on their next gen systems because the PS3 and 360 are doing well and also I don't have the money to afford a new system.

Yes but it's not directly due to the power than the profit is less it's prely due to the fact more power means more costs which means higher retail prices which eventually leads to less profit. I'll say it again adding more power to Nitnendo's consoles wouldn't hurt their profit, however raising their price due to the extra power would.



As I said old Nintendo ruled. Many of those legendary classics that are always featured in the "Best Games Evers" lists are from Nintendo. I'm purely refering to the Wii. It's not that Nintendo's exclusives aren't good anymore but they don't seem as good as some of their older games. I blame their shift towards a younger and more mainstream audience.

I'm not saying their difficult. I'm saying that since many of Nintendo's buyers are kids (all my 6 year old cousins for example own Nintendo's) and most of them (not all of course) play games which are much simpler than something like Zelda which implies a small effort.

Great points. Add to that the release of several additional consoles (DS, DSi, DSiXL, 3DS) during the current gen cycle and Nintendo is absolutely knocking the pants off its competitors. In the current gen cycle, Nintendo will have released 6 consoles by my count (Wii, DS, DSi, DSiXL, 3DS, New Nintendo) compared to 1 for Microsoft (360) and 2 for Sony (PS3, new PSP).

Actually, it is quite ridiculous now that I think about it. Ridiculous that M$ and Sony are so far behind. I think the reason is pretty simple. M$ and Sony are too spread out and play in too many industries. Nintendo just does games and they have the business down to a science.

Well then why couldn't Nintendo get any decent games on the Wii?

While Wii i think actually sold the most consoles, I think they sold the least amount of games, and lots of the best-sellers were pretty lame for "real" gamers (wii-fit, wii resort, etc.)

*must resist* And yet few of their recent games are excellent and third party games like OB or FO never made to Wii :shrug: I would continue this but this is going quite off topic and I don't want start a consoles war.

More power requires more money to develop and more money to produce each unit. This requires a higher retail price point and longer sales cycles to break even. Higher retail price point means lower potential market, which means lower profit.

You cannot put in "extra power" for free. So "adding more power to Nintendo's consoles" WILL hurt profit because their only choices are 1) don't raise price=less profit per unit or 2) raise price = smaller potential market = less profit.

There's business 101 for you.

They can add way more power for the same amount of price as the 360 and PS3 had at there launch. Every current, and previous gen console has sold for a loss in the beginning, it's when the cost of the materials goes down that the console itself makes a profit.

It really comes down to a choice for Bethesda to make.

"Do we take time to redevelop our code for use on the new Nintendo console and Sony Portable or do we get started on our next game and consider them for it?"

I'm sure you can guess what they will choose.

The parts of Microsoft and Sony that do the games consoles are completely different branches of the company. For Sony they are so different they may as well have been actual different companies, not one big family. It took a good few years into the development to get the Sony TVs to even vaguely talk to the PS3, and just about as long for the BRAVIA TVs to take on the XMB and such of the playstation. And as for spreading themselves too far, half the reason they are as big as they are (and could afford to sell the playstation consoles at a loss) is because they have other business ventures to balance it out.

Actually they could. It would simply hurt profit. I'll say it one more time: the power doesn't DIRECTLY harm their profit. It does however indirectly due to corporations.

Thanks for the lesson though :whistling:

Why does Nintendo need that power? When have they EVER tried being the cutting edge in terms of graphics. They have good stylization to make up for it, so... why? It seems like a waste to me. Like buying a big gaming computer if all your going to do is make and play different tetris themed games on it.

Explain. What do you mean by indirectly due to corporations?

Not exactly a great argument, considering they did it for PS3.

Same can be said for Microsoft which leaves Nintendo struggling despite their success in the current gen.

It's pointless to discuss the future of the gaming industry on this forum, but I'll bite.

Casual gamers are the future. Period. If you don't believe me than why are 7/10 of the top selling games each week consistently on the Wii or DS?

http://www.vgchartz.com/?dg=1

I don't think 86.3M Wii owners around the world would say that the Wii has no decent games. I'm not a huge Wii gamer, but I own one and I think some of the games are pretty good for family or party entertainment. Wii games meet a different need than a game like Skyrim.

Besides, the point is irrelevant in this conversation. We're talking about console sales and Skyrim being on a future Nintendo console. The markets are totally different. What we (on this forum) define as a decent game is far different than what the emerging game consumer would consider a decent game. Nintendo has focused on that "emerging gamer" ever since the NES came out when I was 5 years old.

You simply cannot argue with the numbers. Nintendo has been the most successful game company in the world for the last 20+ years and that's not going to change any time soon.

The Wii actually does sell games. It's a common myth that it doesn't. In any case there are plenty of traditional Nintendo first party games on the Wii.

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Super Paper Mario (Don't let its name fool you it's a clever action RPG.)
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
Super Mario Galaxy
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Mario Kart Wii (Don't confuse this with Mario Party this is a very solid, maybe great, game.)
Punch-Out!!
New Super Mario Bros. Wii
Metroid: Other M (This is a divisive title, so ignore it if you wish.)
Super Mario Galaxy 2
Kirby's Epic Yarn
Donkey Kong Country Returns

I'd hardly consider that lack of "any" decent games. That doesn't include third party games either, though I admittedly get Nintendo consoles FOR first party games much of the time...


I disagree somewhat here. The 3DS is unproven (though I hope it continues Nintendo's hard earned handheld dominance), and as far as I'm concerned the DS/DSi/DSiXL are the same system.

99% of corporations only care about money so the more profit the better. Which is why they "can't" (won't really cause they physically can) add extra power without raising the retail price.

Build me a computer with 256MB ram and no disk drive and one with 2GB ram with a BD player and tell me if they cost the same.