Would be really cool to hear something official. These posts, especially the reddit from FlapSnapple, leave huge holes for skepticism. Highly doubt that the packaging for the new system will be similar to the Wii U, as Nintendo will want to make the distinction very obvious on the store shelves (the reddit post suggests the packaging is also "white and blue," rather than "the Wii U's blue and black." The base model Wii U packaging was white and blue.).

Speculation can be fun, though! I really like the idea of a Beyond Good & Evil reboot being a launch title :D.

Speculation and rumors are why I've pretty much ignored what I've read about the NX. However, I've discovered in recent months that many rumors related to gaming actually turn out to be true, or extremely close. I'd like to know more about the NX as the new Zelda game is tempting me to get one. However, what I want to know most regarding that subject is if the game will be different on both consoles. I expect it'd probably perform better on the NX, but I guess we'll see. I might wait after the game's release when I can find out if there are differences in the two games. I'd be much cheaper for me to just buy the Wii U version, since I already own a Wii U. I also have some kind of high hopes for the NX. I've been loving Nintendo since the NES and I think the company seems to have lost some popularity over the years which I'd like to see make a come back.

If you know me then you'll know that I must fully disagree. I think they should go with the blue/black color scheme. Red/black is so 90's! It's time to continue to look forward with blue/black. Hahahaha Well, that's just my personal preference. It doesn't really matter to me what color scheme they use. I'm more interested in specifics.

:) Congratulations Adam, you know me. Haha

I know someone's about to post an article here about the reveal. I would but I'm on my cell, and more nimble fingers would likely beat me to it. Sooo...post that article! :D

That. Is hilarious. "Do you want me to lose?! Is that what you want?"

Have you tried Rogue Legacy, Adam? It's a rogulike platformer. Might be right up your alley :).

It's actually really good, and the music is snappy .

I like that you mentioned Duck Tales. I remember playing it when I was about 12. I enjoyed it. I haven't looked at the remastered version, but (since you remind me) I may. I enjoyed Mega Man back then, too. I do have the Legacy Collection on Steam, which at least looks so much better, but I've hardly played it. I was a big TMNT fan back then, too, and had that Gameboy game. I also enjoyed Super Mario, but the first SMB game on Gameboy was difficult, at least that's what I remember of it. My gaming was somewhat limited to a Commodore 128D and a Gameboy. My cousin, however, had a Gameboy, NES, and Sega Genesis. So, I always enjoyed visiting him and playing a variety of games with him. In fact, I strongly believe those moments are what I cherish most of my childhood memories.

At present, however, I'm really not interested in platform games. In recent years I've found Mario games to be much more frustrating than fun. I haven't tried Super Mario Maker, but my son has played it.

These days I think I'm more interested in games that feature an open world, exploration, RPG elements, crafting, and surviving. I am looking forward to the new Zelda game which seems to contain many of those elements.

Risk of Rain! Definitely Risk of Rain!

This is a great video, not just for the comparison between the non-Mega Man games and their spiritual predecessor, but also in showing some of the troublesome nuances with Kickstarter projects and games that are Early Access. While Mighty No. 9 seems to have elements of bait-and-switch (and suffering from it), 20XX is snowballing in a more positive direction. Jack's perspective of what Kickstarter is, and how supporting projects on that platform should be approached, is spot on. It doesn't excuse tricking people into giving you money, but I get the impression that too many people (i.e. backers) view Kickstarter as a sales portal, rather than an investment portal. Contrasting that, with Early Access games, especially on Steam, there are significant warnings about what you are getting, and how it will undoubtedly change over the course of development. During that time, though, you have a thing to play, and test, and submit feedback on. You're paying the devs to beta, or alpha, test their game.

I'm not a huge fan of Mega Man. I forgot which ones I played (probably the first two), though I remember enjoying them well enough. The idea of 20XX, with it's procedural levels and roguelike play, sounds more appealing than Mighty No. 9, but I'll wait until 20XX is more polished, or finished for that matter.

...expecting the return to be the thing you put money into supporting.

That thing that you are supporting, though, could change drastically, or not get delivered (*9% of successful Kickstarter projects fail to deliver rewards) . That's the difference.

"We want everyone to understand exactly how Kickstarter works — that it’s not a store, and that amid creativity and innovation there is risk and failure." * https://www.kickstarter.com/fulfillment

I don't know. I don't see Kickstarter as a marketing tool, per se. In fact, it seems that projects that succeed have the bulk of their audience before coming to Kickstarter. Maybe it's the summation of a marketing push, but not the start of it. I'm sure you could use Kickstarter however you want, and people do, as you've said, but they are the outliers. The primary motivator for initiating a Kickstarter project is to get funds. That's the core of the service. If your main reason for being there is to build an audience, I think you might be using it wrong. There are probably more practical (and efficient) ways to do that than with a fundraiser (Facebook, mailing lists, etc.). Otherwise, you're kinda putting the cart before the horse.

The methods you mention work when you have people, but how do you go get them in the first place?

This might be subjective, but all the research I've done (I'm interested in potentially using Kickstarter for my own project) points to building awareness first through social media hubs, personal email campaigns (mailing lists), basic advertising, and so on. Campaign for your project first, then go to crowdfunding. You want people to know what you're about before asking them for money. Building toward a Kickstarter campaign months in advance gives your fans something to look forward to, and that anticipation can perpetuate interest in your project, so that, when the time comes, they have allocated funds and are prepared to invest. Exposing an audience to your project for the first time through Kickstarter, on the other hand, gives them a deadline to invest (While this was initially successful for Comcept with Mighty No. 9, it ultimately lead to buyers remorse with a lot of backers). They may stumble upon it half-way, at which point they only have 15 days or so to decide whether or not they want to support you. Then they start looking through other projects on Kickstarter to see if their money might be better invested on another project (one that is a little more polished, is closer to funding, etc). They have no preexisting interest in your thing, so they face little resistance when clicking over to another page. That's not to say that people won't find you and support you during the fundraising, but I think building steam to that end will yield a much more successful campaign.

That's a really interesting article, Wick. Thanks for sharing.

It's certainly nice to be able to read cautionary tales, without having to go through the process. I appreciate the input :).

https://youtu.be/L7NIQN9NwAM