Apologies for the crossposting but this is more interesting to talk about here. And please, let's not focus in the lack of buttons for now.

Nintendo sales their 150 - 170 US Handheld system as always. And then the following contraption as it's more powerful offereing. This is Nintendo's patent using a Free Form Screen for those not familiar with:

• It comes with a QHD screen.
• Streams to the TV.
• It would have a 3 - 5 hour battery, but it's mainly desgined to be played connected to the outlet.
• Uses it's own cards and handheld cards.
• The Handheld, Extra Controllers and this device have the same input/button layout.
• It's compatible with all Nintendo next handheld games.
• Enhances handle games.
• Handheld can be used as an extra controller.
• Plays Mobile games.
• Power level ~ Nvidia Tablet K1 (2014) and up.
• Nintendo bites the bullet and sells official emulators for GC/Wii/Wii U games.
• Zelda: Breath of the Wild Launch title.
• Sold separetely could be a base with expandable storage option, an USB 3.0 type C for charging and quick data exchange. And it would have a very weak processor. The idea is to comunicate with the base remotely so you can let it idle downloading games or software while you are away.

Nintendo sells their Handheld and sells this hypothetical device. The above contraption will have games excluevly made for it since it's more powerful than the handheld. The Hardware would cost 250/270 US and feautres whatever stronger SOC they can afford at that price margin.

Basically like many of us point out in the past, is a better execution of the Wii U concept and could have the Free Form Display as an extra hook since the screens are not common still and Sharp's main target for the tech has been the automotive industry and non of the big smartphone manufactures haven't say anything about the tech. Well that i know for at least.

Do you think there's a market for something like that?

Refreshment.01 said:

But don't you think there's too much competition for that?

i mean offering an OS, iOS been your example, would mean they' ll need to offer a variety of features and services in a similar fashion.

i do see them branching leveraging the strenght of their IPs but with things like the announced animation, movie deals. And theme park attractions using their ideas and intellectual property. And continue with their mobile experiments, a good idea would be to move their Touch Generation series into smart devices.

Click to expand...

They can position themselves as an alternative to iOS rather than a straight iOS killer,, similar to what Amazon does with their FireOS devices. All they'll really need is more media distribution on the eShop. Something like iTunes or Google Play. And they'll need to make the eShop an open development environment like iOS, where anyone can develop with a consumer device (then again, I'm more familiar with Android, so correct me if I'm wrong).

Refreshment.01 said:

Remember im playing devil's advocate here for debate purposes:

In the case you propose the price of entry into their ecosystem would be a 100 dollars. Since NIntendo still sells the handheld as always.

Click to expand...

But if you can buy the two devices separately (and they operate separately), is it a hybrid? Is the PS4 and Vita a hybrid system because they briefly gave people the option of buying them in a single box?

Thraktor said:

But if you can buy the two devices separately (and they operate separately), is it a hybrid? Is the PS4 and Vita a hybrid system because they briefly gave people the option of buying them in a single box?

Click to expand...

Well the 2 examples i 've given don't work like you suggest above, the topic creator did have that confusion and some other posters thought.

In the 2 examples given, the Handheld is always the handheld. They sell the handheld system in a traditional way. As an aside, i proposed an even cheaper stripped down version of the handheld that could be connected to Smartphones to use it's features (Screen, Wifi, Speakers, etc), as an even lower barrier of entry to Nintendo's ecosystem. But it's a rough idea, i have as of now, but im going on a tangent here.

So 2 devices, one the Handheld as always. Now the other device Nintendo sells it's the Hybrid. For example, look at the Free Form Device i described above. That contraption has characteristics of the handheld, since is portable, not exactly pocketable but can be moved around easily. Has it's own screen and plays and enhances all of the hadheld games. Is more powerful, has higher cost and a key feature here is that it also plays it's own games and share the same OS.

The Vita/PS4 combo in your example doesn't fit that criteria. You can't take a Vita card and play it on the PS4 and the PS4 is not a device to be moved around like the Vita and lacks an screen. Their architectures are completely different and they don't share the same OS.

Great write up OP, I'm hoping that the gap between console and handheld is finally closed by Nintendo

Refreshment.01 said:

Well the 2 examples i 've given don't work like you suggest above, the topic creator did have that confusion and some other posters thought.

In the 2 examples given, the Handheld is always the handheld. They sell the handheld system in a traditional way. As an aside, i proposed an even cheaper stripped down version of the handheld that could be connected to Smartphones to use it's features (Screen, Wifi, Speakers, etc), as an even lower barrier of entry to Nintendo's ecosystem. But it's a rough idea, i have as of now, but im going on a tangent here.

So 2 devices, one the Handheld as always. Now the other device Nintendo sells it's the Hybrid. For example, look at the Free Form Device i described above. That contraption has characteristics of the handheld, since is portable, not exactly pocketable but can be moved around easily. Has it's own screen and plays and enhances all of the hadheld games. Is more powerful, has higher cost and a key feature here is that it also plays it's own games and share the same OS.

The Vita/PS4 combo in your example doesn't fit that criteria. You can't take a Vita card and play it on the PS4 and the PS4 is not a device to be moved around like the Vita and lacks an screen. Their architectures are completely different and they don't share the same OS.

Click to expand...

Let's back up a bit and consider exactly what a hybrid is and the various ways in which it could be implemented, just so we know what we're actually discussing (as we seem to have different definitions of what a Nintendo "hybrid" console would actually be). If it's not disagreeable, let's take the following as the definition

- A hybrid console is a system which attempts to duplicate the functionality both of a handheld and a home console.

Now, as I see it there are three different possibilities of how this may be implemented:

1. There is only one physical device, which functions as a handheld, and can transmit video to a TV.
2. There are two physical devices, and the device which functions as a handheld has processing power equal to or greater than the stationary device.
3. There are two physical devices, and the device which functions as a handheld has less processing power than the stationary device.

All of the proposals of how this works that I've read so far fall into one of those three categories (actually they almost all fall into category 1 or 3, but we'll consider 2 as well for completeness). If you've come across any proposals which can't be covered by any of these categories, I'll take them under consideration. We'll go through the possibilities one by one:

1. There is only one physical device, which functions as a handheld, and can transmit video to a TV.

The method of transmission in this case could be a HDMI cable, a standardised wireless protocol like Miracast, or a proprietary transmission protocol like the Wii U uses, with some kind of HDMI dongle to receive the signal (which sort of overlaps with category 2, but functionally it's the same as the other transmission methods).

There are two principal issues with this category. The first is one that has already been covered: it simply isn't possible for a SoC that has to fit within the cost, thermal and battery life limits of a handheld to provide sufficient performance to get even anywhere near the ballpark of the XBO, let alone the PS4, Neo or Scorpio. At best, you'd be looking at visuals which are a slight improvement over the Wii U. While I don't expect Nintendo to push the performance envelope with NX, I do think that they would want to at least place themselves within the ballpark of the XBox One to at least have the possibility of some third party support.

The second is a simple (and admittedly subjective) one; this isn't really a hybrid. It's a handheld with the possibility to stream to a TV, and, particularly when combined with the point above, it would be seen first and foremost as a handheld by consumers. If Nintendo were to release a device like this and not release a separate stationary home console then I wouldn't consider this a hybrid, I'd consider Nintendo to have left the home console business.

2. There are two physical devices, and the device which functions as a handheld has processing power equal to or greater than the stationary device.

In the trivial case (ie where the stationary device has virtually no computational power), then this is effectively the same as category 1, with the stationary device as a dongle or simple video receiver for the TV. In the non-trivial case, where the stationary device has some computational power, then you have a hybrid system where (a) it would be very challenging for developers to make proper use of both SoCs and (b) even if perfect use were made of both SoCs, the total performance would still be well outside the ballpark of the XBO, and make third party support near-impossible.

3. There are two physical devices, and the device which functions as a handheld has less processing power than the stationary device.

This category covers quite a broad spectrum. At one end, the problem is the same as in category 2; the added performance of the two devices is insufficient to reach the threshold necessary for third party support. At the other end, the performance of the stationary device could be arbitrarily more powerful than the handheld device.

Let's consider a relative mid-point, where combined performance of the two is somewhere between XBO and PS4. In this case, the performance of the stationary device is somewhere in the ballpark of an order of magnitude higher than the handheld device. You still have one of the issues we had with category 2, that properly utilising both devices' SoCs simultaneously would be very challenging for developers, but now you're in the position that, even when a developer goes all-out to utilise both devices, the performance they get will only be trivially better than just using the stationary device's SoC. In this situation, why would anyone go to the bother of optimising the utilisation of two SoCs across a (presumably laggy and low-bandwidth) wireless connection when you can get perhaps 90% of the performance by just building for the stationary device alone as you would for a home console?

So now, you've effectively got a handheld and a home console in one box, where games can run on one or the other. In this case, though, why are you putting them in one box? Why, as I asked above, sell the two devices together for $300 when you can sell the handheld for $100 and the home console for $200? The benefit of treating the two devices as a hybrid system isn't nearly enough to offset the benefits which would come from just selling the two devices separately as a handheld and a home console which share the same library.


Coming back to your own proposal above, what you're proposing basically falls into category 1. That is, your hybrid device is effectively a handheld device which transmits video to a TV. Aside from the issues dealt with above, what you're proposing is that Nintendo effectively make and support two separate handheld systems. Why? If you are going the "hybrid" route of category 1, then why make it a different device to the "pure" handheld? It would simply confuse customers and make Nintendo's life more difficult by having to support two different pieces of hardware while they could be supporting just one.

The post has been shortned while retaining the context. The last 2 paragraphs sum up well your point of view. 2 other middle paragraphs are retained because they refer about specific topics.

For what i can see here, the points you mentioned have already been adressed through my various posts in the thread but let's take this opportunity to recap.

- A hybrid console is a system which attempts to duplicate the functionality both of a handheld and a home console.

Thraktor said:

There are two principal issues with this category. The first is one that has already been covered: it simply isn't possible for a SoC that has to fit within the cost, thermal and battery life limits of a handheld to provide sufficient performance to get even anywhere near the ballpark of the XBO, let alone the PS4, Neo or Scorpio. At best, you'd be looking at visuals which are a slight improvement over the Wii U. While I don't expect Nintendo to push the performance envelope with NX, I do think that they would want to at least place themselves within the ballpark of the XBox One to at least have the possibility of some third party support.

Click to expand...

These issues has been responded previously:

• The Hybrid won't necessarily offer competing specs to the X1 or PS4.
• 3rd party support Nintendo would get, is not dependant of the console power.
• People equates 3rd party support to AAA 3rd party support.
• Nintendo's most important 3rd party support has been on the Handheld side of busyness after the SNES.

The reason so much emphasis is put on the console been in the same range as an X1 or PS4 it's because some people think is the only way to guarantee support from external studios. But this is true mainly for AAA games. There's nothing preventing 3rd parties from offering their mobile offerings or games that have traditionally sold better in Nintendo's platforms: Kids, Females and Family audiences or specific genres like platform games for example.

Is it of worth to invest resources in hardware equivalence when the AAA games that typically are the ones that demand such processing capacity tend to not sell well (or as well) in Nintendo home consoles?

We should consider that there are 3 other platforms that serve better the audience that chase those type of games. So in that sense investing resources in hardware capabilities for yet a 4th platform to offer the same AAA games can be risky with not much rewards to reap.

Tangentially related. Issues with lack of power equivalence could be studied parting of from the Wii example. However, in terms of Nintendo's development specifically, what hurt the console in the public's eye more than anything else, was the incapacity to generate HD visuals. Given Nintendo's ambition, scale and genre of it's projects most of the concepts could have worked great in a Wii at the same complexity level but with HD visuals. Nintendo internal teams are very good at masking Hardware limitations with clever art direction and visual design.

Let's consider a relative mid-point, where combined performance of the two is somewhere between XBO and PS4. In this case, the performance of the stationary device is somewhere in the ballpark of an order of magnitude higher than the handheld device. You still have one of the issues we had with category 2, that properly utilising both devices' SoCs simultaneously would be very challenging for developers, but now you're in the position that, even when a developer goes all-out to utilise both devices, the performance they get will only be trivially better than just using the stationary device's SoC. In this situation, why would anyone go to the bother of optimising the utilisation of two SoCs across a (presumably laggy and low-bandwidth) wireless connection when you can get perhaps 90% of the performance by just building for the stationary device alone as you would for a home console?

Click to expand...

Well, i haven't seen an example about the "challenge" to support a Dual SOC that isn't disapproved by praxis and reality.

Historically we have seen PC game developers supporting a variety of Crossfire and SLI configurations. Supporting a wide range of different CPU and GPU configurations. Or console devs supporting exotic architectures such as the Cell processor and it's SPUs.

Why all of the sudden the challenge of a multi SOC hardware in a closed and fixed platform would be some kind of insurmountable obstacle?

Out of the 3 hypothetical hybrid scenarios you listed, 2/3 could use a physical connection for the 2 devices to interact with each other. Maybe even an industry standard connection like USB 3.1 or Thunderbolt is possible.

So now, you've effectively got a handheld and a home console in one box, where games can run on one or the other. In this case, though, why are you putting them in one box? Why, as I asked above, sell the two devices together for $300 when you can sell the handheld for $100 and the home console for $200? The benefit of treating the two devices as a hybrid system isn't nearly enough to offset the benefits which would come from just selling the two devices separately as a handheld and a home console which share the same library.

Click to expand...

Answered already. The above applies to cases 2/3. The hanheld is available separetely for the 100 and it's a rather cheap way to enter the ecosystem.

The short answer is the benefits of the hybrid platform: Dual Screen type experiences, gaming away and home at the same time (remember families), enhanced processing with the 2 devices working together. Basically the type of interactions a mobile and stationary device could allow and developers knowing they could take advantage of this because every device would be present in the hybrid platform, not an "IF scenario" where the user might have one but not the other.

*Note: The following is a response to your entire lsat paragraph.

Coming back to your own proposal above, what you're proposing basically falls into category 1. That is, your hybrid device is effectively a handheld device which transmits video to a TV.

Click to expand...

Explained already. The device even fills your own Hybrid criteria:

• Mobility (more than "pocketabity").
• Plays all games of the handheld platform.
• Plays it own set of games which the handheld couldn't run.
• Big screen TV gaming.

Aside from the issues dealt with above, what you're proposing is that Nintendo effectively make and support two separate handheld systems. Why? If you are going the "hybrid" route of category 1, then why make it a different device to the "pure" handheld? It would simply confuse customers and make Nintendo's life more difficult by having to support two different pieces of hardware while they could be supporting just one.

Click to expand...

Why make such a device? Many reasons:

• The form factor allows a SOC that can have available 5/8 times the TDP of the handheld.
• More space for cooling solutions, like an small fan for example.
• Substantially more powerful than the handheld.
• Enhances all handheld games.
• Plays it's own more demanding games.
• TV gaming instead of the small screen gaming in the Handheld.
• Better realization of the Wii U concept.

You can throw the handheld in your pocket and game anywhere "on the Go". The Hybrid device works as mobile that you can play mainly anywhere around the house or elsewhere indoors. For example, gaming on the leaving room TV, another person wants to use the TV, the player switches to the build in screen and share the living room with or just moves to another TV in the house. Or downright goes to another house and play on a TV there, a rather simple process in comparison to moving a traditonally tethered living room home console.

Customer confusion. Why would there be any problems when the devices are clearly two different form factors? The handheld is the functional equivalent of a smartphone and the Hybrid is the equivalent of a tablet or laptop.

Support. Why would it be any harder to support this hypothetical device? In your case you talk about a 100 handheld and a 200 home console as the alternative. There isn't any added complexity by having the other device been a hybrid instead of a stationary home console.

More over, Nintendo is moving to a more integrated development structure and to a shared OS. So they would be in a better postion than ever to sustain their devices So i don't see the issue here.

Thought I'd bump this thread of mine in light of the recent Eurogamer news (admittedly still a rumor) that seems to point toward the NX being, in fact, a hybrid. It's pretty much what I envisioned in the OP, sans the scaling up and down. So one system that functions as both a console and a portable, rather than a shared device family.

If it's not going to scale up or down, I just want to know if it will be more powerful than WiiU. Also, I think there's a chance a mainline Animal Crossing game may be in the cards. They made all those HD assets for the Animal Crossing Plaza and Amiibo Festival, only to not use them in an HD game... With the NX effectively being a portable and an HD console rolled together, it'd seem perfect for the next Animal Crossing game. Maybe at or around launch?

I firmly think NX will be a portable first and a home console second. Meaning that when used as a home console, I honestly think it will upscale to 1080p at best. The graphics will remain the same in order to keep the experience the same.

I think a hybrid would be a good idea, but if it is more than $200 and looks clunky, it will flop. Casuals don't want to shell out hundreds of dollars for a system. They want to go to the store one day and make an impulse purchase on an affordable device.

Neiteio said:

Thought I'd bump this thread of mine in light of the recent Eurogamer news (admittedly still a rumor) that seems to point toward the NX being, in fact, a hybrid. It's pretty much what I envisioned in the OP, sans the scaling up and down. So one system that functions as both a console and a portable, rather than a shared device family.

Click to expand...

Except for any fundamental changes or inaccuracies what you described as an Hybrid system is substantially different from what the Eurogamer report states.

Your proposition basically amounted to Nintendo selling their standard Home console and portable devices bundled together, this basically works as a combo more than an "Hybrid" in a sense. On the other hand, Eurogamer describes the Hybrid as a single device.

The other propositions in this thread are closer. To see in which one falls depends on what role the docking base would end up having. Mainly if it has any influence in the Hybrid processing capabilities or the processing throughput remains the same as in mobile mode.

It's really interesting how much influence the way to connect this system to the wall can have or had in the design. Maybe we' ll take about it later.

To be honest I would rather have a really powerful handheld but if it's a hybrid I'm cool with that too.

I see the main advantage is having all the first party studios on one system so that's cool with me.