yeah, i'm going to have to go ahead and agree with the $300 estimate... if only because (sadly) I believe the rumors about Nintendo hitting the bargain bin on their GPU to keep costs down.

I would GLADLY pay $400-$450 for the WiiU if it featured some solid, forward-thinking hardware specs (not mind-blowingly powerful, which is really outside of a console's reach at a reasonable price, but with enough oomph to output native 1080p while running all the bells and whistles of developers' recently-teased game engine updates).

But hey, that really isn't how Ninty operates (nor what has made them special to me, for that matter). I'll always feel a little embarassed by the specs, and I'll always feel ultimately satisfied by the truly engaging experiences that the company offers me. I DON'T think that Iwata-and-co. will get greedy after the 3DS price debaucle, so I'm confident that we will get a somewhat annoyingly (though not painfully) underpowered system at a reasonable price.

man, is anyone else sort of disappointed about the timing on this, though?  I was desperately hoping that Retro would have something spectacular ready for the system's launch... this seems like team-building, which is awesome for the future, but sheds some doubt on the state of Retro's current activity.  I sure hope that a core team, at least, has been diligently plugging away at an epic masterpiece for the last few years...

I would imagine that, more and more, publishers will be moving toward digital distribution for demos. The costs involved with making physical disks (and mailing them) are a major burden that simply doesn't need to exist... for the majority of consumers, at least.

Of course, there's no reason that a company COULDN'T put out demo disks if they wanted to... I just don't think it will be very likely, or common (because of the cost).

The real issue that this brings up, however, is how easy Nintendo is willing to make it for publishers to get demos uploaded to their online marketplace. Even Microsoft, which is by all accounts a leader in digital distribution on consoles, garners a significant amount of chagrin from publishers over capacity and format restrictions on its Xbox LIVE marketplace (as well as issues of providing adequate exposure to consumers).

Yeah, I also have to cast my vote for the style featured in the demo. I really like the idea of taking a surrealist approach to the alternate dimension/world... but I must say that I prefer what has been called "realism" here to a more impressionistic or cell-shaded approach, for the main world at least.

I also have to wonder about Twilight Princess aging worse than other Zelda titles. Even OoT and Majora's Mask, some of the most enjoyable gaming experiences ever created, are ultimately - to me - consumable media. I have enjoyed replaying them from time to time... but they are not timeless masterpieces of art. I expect a game to capture me when I play it... but I also very much expect it to be of its time and for its time (and this is not a 'diss on the medium's potential as art... I just don't think we are quite there yet, and I don't think we need to be there to legitimize our interest).

I think Apple did do SOME evil scheming.

lol... fair enough. I also really like the idea that Retro could be Nintendo's Pixar. I love their work so far... their history as a company just makes me worried that they're not really the same kind of miracle machine with the same kind of creative ethos as Pixar (and thus that their streak of brilliance may be more a fortunate fluke than a result of their creative excellence). Just a worry... I'm rooting for them nonetheless, and I hope they turn out to be the next big studio for the big N.

Yeah... I don't think that Apple entering the console business was ever seriously being considered here. The very reason for the Apple's gaming success is the fact that it isn't a console... it's that very "casual-gaming" trend that has people worried in terms of market shift.

People like their interests to move around with them... and as we become a more and more impulsive culture, our interests shift more and more rapidly. We like to be moving, and when we're moving we like to choose between gaming, social networking, net surfing, movie watching, productivity planning (calendars and such), and music listening as the whim hits us. I am not particularly fond of this disposition, but it appears to be a cultural fact... it feels cumbersome to carry around my 3DS, when I know that all of my apps are on my ipod. When I am home, I am already starting to resent the fact that it takes so long to really fire up my console and get into a game, because I'm busy.

I like console gaming (as an experience) much, much better than the silly diversions available for iPod.... but I will buy and play ipod games, becaues they are cheap and they fit my lifestyle. It deserves to be mentioned that Apple never intended to make a gaming device... in fact, they seemed almost to be dragged into the business. They don't make games, and the "app" store, as has already been mentioned, was hardly designed for games. That Apple has become direct competition for Sony and Nintendo is due entirely to consumer demand, and not to Apple's evil scheming.

That being said, I'm not sure that handheld devices could ever truly replace consoles (at least not in the near future). There will always be the form factor to consider - the fact that people don't want a phone the size of a laptop, and that manufacturers can't fit cutting-edge hardware into a smartphone shell. As far as the experience goes, gamers will always prefer to have buttons (and sticks and triggers too, apparently!!!), and will always demand the kind of high production values that naturally result in enormous file sizes (bigger than you would want to store on a handheld device, or wait to download to one) and appreciable prices. YouTube hasn't yet killed Hollywood, and Apple won't kill Nintendo either. Hardcore gaming will always remain a separate market... though perhaps not as big a market as the trends of the late '90s and early '00s seemed to promise. Lots of people will have the itch scratched by mobile gaming and call it there... us hardcore gamers will always demand our boxes.

P.S. I also have thought about the whole Nintendo/Disney comparison... and I definitely think that Nintendo needs its Pixar.

There are a LOT of very reasonable responses to the original "worries" being posted here, so I won't waste everyone's time by reiterating.  I would only add that Nintendo does, in fact, have to "worry" about about its competition... though certainly not, as others have so eloquently explained, because of the obvious fact that its tech will be somewhat "behind" them.

Nintendo's only real worry is the same as it always has been - to stay relevant to a market with decidedly Western tastes and a voracious appetite for social networking.  Nintendo has been struggling for a while with these elements... and I think that it is ultimately this battle that will decide the "console war" for this next cycle.  Can Nintendo make games that capture the Western imagination (which means some new IPs), and can they keep us connected in the way that we have come to expect from any/all of our electronic devices?  I don't know... but I hope so.

Yeah... I'm with TRON in his disappointment that Nintendo did not push for better tech. HOWEVER, I get Nintendo's reasoning for not doing so.

Cutting edge tech would make the system very pricey, and Nintendo knows that it can't push its luck with the market (especially after losing the confidence of so many gamers and developers with the Wii). Better tech means even longer development cycles for the developers that even bother to take advantage of the hardware (and many won't take advantage of it for many years), and even selling hardware at a huge loss, I doubt that many gamers are ready to pay the $600-$800 that Nintendo would have to sell the console for.

The cost/benefit curve just drops off so steeply after a certain point... it would be hard to maintain a solvent business model selling consoles that offer marginally better partical/lighting effects and reflection mapping than a PS3, but for more than twice the price. You and I might take the plunge, but I'm guessing (from the sales data on high-end graphics cards, if nothing else) that not many others will.

I do very much enjoy some open world games (Red Dead Redemption being foremost in my mind)... but I think that it definitely needs to be the right kind of game. I think that a Monster-Hunter-esque dragon-slaying epic in a fantasy setting would really suit Nintendo well, and would make for a great open world game.

I liked some of the suggestions above as well... though many of them seemed more like what I would consider "sandbox" games or even RPGs, rather than open world games. I do think that Nintendo needs a good open world game, in any case... and any new IP would excite me!

I'm glad someone brought up this topic! I am personally a big "trophy hound" on Xbox... but I'm also clear-headed enough to admit that this seriously contradicts my stated love of immersion in story and love of gaming for gaming's sake. The two loves are kind of parallel, but I find myself enjoying both pursuits almost equally.

I think that Nintendo should include an achievement system (even if it only tracks progress in the background, or only for online play), and I like the idea of using upgradeable medals with associated coin values. Achievements serve a social networking function, if nothing else, and they provide a fun incentive for replaying the game far past its standard life (in this case... the more outlandish the requirements for the achievement, the better). Playing games is fun, regardless of any "rewards" doled out for playing. But everyone likes a little swag to pin on for bragging purposes, even if you're only bragging to yourself. It's like tally marks on an airplane cockpit, or button-collecting at Disneyland...

So everyone pretty much agrees on this front (that the Conduit simply cannot fit the bill of flagship FPS franchise for a Nintendo system)... but I'm actually rather interested in the Individual "why's" (especially the ones people are reluctant to mention). Some seem to think that Nintendo is incapable of courting a real "hardcore" FPS at all, while others simply object to the Conduit as an individual franchise.

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. I think Nintendo has been home to some of the greatest FPS of all time (Goldeneye/Perfect Dark) in earlier console cycles, and I see no reason at all why they cannot do the same thing this next cycle. The Conduit, while fun, is a copycat game on every level, from story to play mechanics and everything in between. This does not mean, however, that Nintendo could not court a real quality, innovative studio - one that could produce the "next big thing" in FPS gaming. Lots of people are afraid to use "hardcore" on these boards as a descriptor, because the reaction is often so severe (for one reason or another)... but really, people, we know what is meant by the term if we are being even slightly charitable. Halo is a deep, innovative experience. It is well crafted and well polished. It does a lot of very interesting and very unique things with online multiplayer, and with open-world combat. People that play competitively and spend lots of money on services and DLC are VERY into this game. It's fun to play, in part and as much as it pains us to admit it, for the same reason that Facebook is fun to use... because it's "cool" enough that everyone uses it. I think that Nintendo can, and that Nintendo SHOULD, play host to a game that does just this - captures the hardcore market with a fresh, innovative approach to the stale FPS formula, and provides the market with an experience that IT thinks is "cool". I know this is distasteful to a lot of people... but entertainment companies really do have to pay attention to what consumers want in terms of theme, tone, and style.

That doesn't mean that Nintendo should sell out on the kind of game that they want to make (that would make for some really clunky and awkward gaming), but it sure as first-person-shooting does mean that they need to court a studio that does want to make this kind of game.

I'm agreed about the NEW part of the new IP being essential. I like the Nintendo franchises - I really, really do - but I want to see something new; something that takes the Nintendo spark of ingenuity and completely refreshes a genre with a new world, a new set of characters, and a new vibe. They did it with Star Fox in the SNES days, and they did it with Pikmin in the GC days. In my (humble in the sense that no one really cares about it) opinion, it's time for a NEW franchise.

I am SO glad to see some other big Star Fox fans in here... as I have said elsewhere, I would love for Retro to get behind the wheel of this franchise (though I think a DK game is more likely, for the reasons mentioned above).

To answer some of the questions asked above about other franchises, I would DEFINITELY suggest playing Eternal Darkness if you are at all a fan of Puzzle/Adventure games with a scary twist. The game is definitely not for everyone (it's too slow for some and two horror-esque for others), but I think its story, its depth, and its atmosphere are some of the best in a Nintendo game. As for Metroid: Other M, I have to say that I am a fan. I am in the minority for liking this game, I know, but I think that it does actually preserve the core of the Metroid experience, while offering an interesting take on the standard Metroid gameplay. The script is pretty bad, I can't lie... it's melodramatic, overplayed, and it ruins a bit of Samus's mystique by making her incessantly reflective and overly sensitive... but the overal experience is a good one (cinematics and all), and I found myself happily replaying it on hard mode the day after I beat it.

it's true that the current trend seems to be devices that can "do it all" - and that makes sense to me. It feels clunky to have to fire up a desktop computer when my ipad can really do most of what I want on a regular basis. I think that Nintendo is right about the cost/benefit not being in their favor (with features such as DVD playback), but the perceived lack of functionality could really hurt them if they don't completely fill the niche of what their product CAN do. When you have products on the market that can functionally serve as total media hubs, it's starting to look clunky to have a console that just "console"s. I think that Nintendo will have to take full advantage of web/bluetooth/streaming functionality with this console... because people have just come to expect a lot of options from their electronic devices.

While I agree that it seems HIGHLY unlikely that Nintendo will charge for its online service, I can't say that I am particularly happy about this...

XboxLIVE is a great service. It really is... and millions of adopters, "hardcore" and "casual" alike, agree. I'm not saying that I really want Nintendo to do something similar, but I AM afraid that I will end up paying each individual company individual, monthly fees on separate account systems for online functionality in their particular game (which is a nightmare). A few things that Nintendo has said make me think in this direction, and I am REALLY hoping that this doesn't happen (but don't know how it can be avoided, especially being that companies like Ubi are already headed there)...

Ya, there really need to be more answer options in this poll. The jump will almost certainly be more noticeable than the indiscernible difference between 360/PS3 (which I defy anyone to truly demonstrate via video sample with commentary on specific visual features), but it will not be NEARLY as big as the truly embarrassing gap between Wii and PS3/360.

So as not to be a hypocrite, here is a video from IGN detailing some of the exact differences that I think will exist between the WiiU and its future competition. The video outlines the differences between Crysis 2 running in DirectX9 (WiiU will be able to push 10.1, so it will be capable of doing slightly more than 9, but none of the advanced tesselation or real-time reflection mapping) and DirectX11. It seems likely that Sony, at least, will wait until they can produce hardware that will run DX11 (though even this would be prohibitively expensive if attempted right now... the commentators referenced major framerate issues at points, and this was a top-of-the-line gaming rig). Still, say what you will about Sony, they spring for the best stuff out there. The PSVita is a good example of that, and evidence against the people who keep saying that Sony has "learned their lesson" with the PS3 and its lack of profitability. And please, for the love of God, don't throw that one quotation from the windbag Sony rep at me... let's look at concrete decisions the company has and is making, not off-hand comments.

Now, I say this looks pretty good for the WiiU. I'm no Sony fan (in fact, most days I think I would open a bottle of old bubbly if the company went under)... but I think they will make a top-of-the-line machine with their next console, and I still say that, even this being the case, the jump is not that big of a deal. Do I like real-time reflection mapping and advanced particle tracking with motion blur effects? Sure... but I can wait six or seven years for them to find the hardware to run them cheaply and efficiently without losing any sleep at all (and my wallet will thank me).

MH shouldnt have a difficulty setting, that would be ridiculous.

I could not agree more with this statement... Monster Hunter KILLED me with its difficulty at various points along the way, but that's what is so fun about it. Once you accomplish one seemingly impossible task, you feel like the ultimate bad-a for a while... then you get to move on to the next seemingly impossible task. This is a huge part of what kept my interest, and kept me committed to the game for 600+ hours to date. There is plenty to do in the game when you are "stuck" at a particularly difficult monster.

I'm actually pretty intrigued by Killer Freaks, as well... though I won't be exactly waiting in line to buy it on day one.

The third party "love" that I'm looking for is mostly potential, rather than actual. I would love to see what 2K is cooking up, and I'll be paying close attention to Rockstar for something like Red Dead or GTA (though I like the former better). Even more than this, however, I'm excited about studios like Remedy, who have made great games in the past, have a history of producing exclusives, and are currently un-signed for their next project. Nintendo needs to snatch those games up!

As far as multi-platform games, I like that Ubi Montreal is working on a new AC game for WiiU (whether that means an updated Revelations or a new title altogether). I'm also waiting to see if Dead Space 3 hits Wii because of EA's strong show of support.

Whatever they call the new Star Fox game... great. Assault 2 would be fine with me (though to be honest I'd prefer not to have a name that suggested a fresh approach).

Story line is not really a problem for a game directed by a Japanese developer... mega man was always reinventing itself by retelling the story with a completely different scenario and plot arc, but using the same universe. Personally, I thought this was brilliant (even though it often confused me as a kid)... a new story for a new generation, but always referencing familiar characters, themes, and fan-beloved elements.

Of course I would buy it!  Sure I don't have a load of cash lying around... but that's what kidneys are for, right?

I would be really excited about this (I'm a HUGE fan of Tri, as it was literally the only Wii game to accumulate a somewhat shocking 500 hours of play time)... but I'm not sure how likely it will be to see the light of day on WiiU.

Tri always had a very strong, dedicated online presence on the Wii, but compared to the franchise's typical audience (PSP and PS2, mostly in Japan) the numbers were abysmally low (the PSP Monster Hunter game following Tri went multi-platinum on day one in Asian markets)!

HD Monster Hunter seems like a no-brainer to me. I think it would look awesome, and they could get rid of some of the annoying parts of the game (like the lack of realistic monster interactivity/ecosystem awareness) and add tons of weapons, locations, and new monsters. To make such a game, however, they would have to pretty much ignore their demographics data, which suggests that the people who are really going to buy their game mostly play old, clunky handhelds!

But the Dreamcast was more powerful than everything else at its time and easy to develop for, yet nobody flocked to it.

Too true... the hope for the Nintendo console has never been in its superior power.

It seems that the new system will be adequately powerful, and it is nice to have a system that is relatively up to par with the market... but the real question has always been about the games. Will Nintendo give us some real, quality 1st/2nd party titles (as well as new, exciting IPs), and will they adequately court quality 3rd party developers?

Second to this has to be the concern of the online functionality... Will they develop a substantial community network, and will the social buzz be attractive enough to establish a real, involved community of gamers?

I HAVE to think that the only reason you would choose Xbox over Nintendo if you had to choose would be because of these issues... am I right? Nintendo's hardware has always had impressive quality in terms of reliability and true control innovation (I, for one, would drop my Xbox in a second if there were anything worthwhile to play on my Nintendo systems). This reinforces to me that Nintendo really must put their focus on these areas...

I'll use one of my Personal Favorite games: portal. The idea is simple; you have a gun that can shoot holes in the walls that are linked together. The execution, on the other hand, is brilliant. It makes Physics fun.

Ya, I totally agree about this game... it's such a great example of a very simple mechanic making for a really deep experience. I think this must be a central facet of truly great games - the ability to put your active involvement with the game world front-and-center through a movement or mechanic that feels good to execute.

For me it is just plainly the content... Also the content has to be good obviosly

Yeah... this makes sense to me, in terms of a sense of value. I can think of a lot of games with massive content that are not at all fun... but it seems true that wealth of available content allows for a richer interaction with the game world - allows you to inhabit that created space more fully.

What makes a game good is how much you feel like your in it. The major advantage is that you are the fat plumber. You finally get to be the hero (or villian) you always wanted to be without any real life consequences... also, accomplishment. In games such as Tetris we aren't being a great hero. What keeps us coming back is the feeling of accomplishment you get from winning. Sometimes this victory makes us feel powerful, sometimes it makes us feel smart. That is what makes a game.

I'm not completely sold that I have a secret fantasy about being a fat plumber, lol , but I get the "chance to be a hero" thing. The odd thing is, however, that the games that seem most to make me really become the hero feature heroes that I don't want to become, whereas games with "bad-a" heroes that I would love to become feel only incidentally or artificially attached to me as a player. (Sure player man, you're Marcus Fenix, *wink*)

The sense of accomplishment is a great point. There is something about victory over a challenge that is just inherently appealing (something about the way our brains are wired... curious little monkeys, yes...)

In Mario 3, the rules of engagement are simple... Due to the simple mechanics (run and jump left and right) and the flexibility afforded to the player in how to overcome challenges, the game becomes fun and intriguing to try to complete. Hell if I get a Tanooki suit I start being super careful because it's so rare and so awesome, I don't want to lose it. What is there in Galaxy to REALLY make you care about your playing like that?

This also makes a lot of sense to me... and this is really what sets Mario apart from other great games featuring simple mechanics (like Angry Birds)... the fact that your performance is carried over between levels. It adds a requirement on the player, while keeping the challenge basically related to the simple core mechanic of moving, waiting, jumping.

Again, I think that this kind of greatness really stresses the interactivity of gaming - the fact that the machinery of the game world revolves around your input.


But now... what about the other side of gaming? What about the narrative aspect? Is that really (as Miyamoto has told us before) incidental to the experience, rather than central? Are games just being crazy in trying to integrate narrative with interactivity? Should they simply be providing backdrop to the mechanic, or framework for the mechanic to hang upon, rather than innovating a path toward real interaction with deep narrative?

Man these threads are really starting to chafe me.... Alex and Aaron (above) know what they're talking about, so people need to read their posts and be DONE with the nonsense talk about non-facts and pseudo-figures like the "10% of its potential" and the "50% more powerful" statisto-babble. People are really running with those figures in completely nonsensical directions and it is not contributing to REAL conversation about the system's ability!

I would LOVE a new, numbered entry in the series... and it certainly wouldn't hurt if they atoned for the betrayal that was FFVII by making it WiiU exclusive (never happen, I know, but I'm still sore about the old PS1 days).