I think it would be a huge mistake not to include a motion control from the start. It is very hard to establish something with a system if it isn't launched with it and Kinect is about the only example I can think of. I think Nintendo will lose a lot of what worked this generation if they don't include motion controls from the start.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wii U Speculation Thread 2: Can't take anymore of this!!!
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
-Pyromaniac-
Member
but the motion controls aren't what need establishing, the upad is what needs it.
Sure, but there was no other way to play those shooters on those systems. Considering how many players actually purchased CoD on the Wii when they had the option to play better supported versions, I'd say there's also a huge market out there who want IR shooting. However, it's pretty safe to say that if they don't include a remote in the box, the amount of support will definitely drop. And the likelihood of there being remote only games drops to almost zero. Including the remote in the box gives developers tons of control options and means they can make pretty much any kind of game they want.
Again, it really comes down to gamers, but they'll be more likely to get what they want if the remote is in the box than not.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
I want the console to be as cheap as possible at launch. If that means they have to omit a wiimote and nunchuk then I am downnn. That's just me though, like I said, I only enjoy motion in very rare circumstances.
But yes, support will probably drop if it's not included. But I think it'll be easy to implement as secondary controls. I could see devs adding them in to appease whoever. Just about everyone that wants motion to live on the wiiU like it did on the Wii, already have the controllers.
Fourth Storm
Member
And remember in the Ghost Recon Online WiiU promo vid, they showed the girl using the Wii remote in an online game. So we at least know that it's on the minds of devs.
1. This is more about a business perspective than what I want/need
2. Yeah, the Wii U controller is the new main one BUT you have to consider that the console likely (if ever) won't support more than two. So there's no option and makes it mandatory for multiplayer gameplay.
3. You have to remember that Nintendo stated they're trying to embrace the "hardcore" crowd that overlooked the Wii for it's kiddy image and underwhelming graphics, hence don't have a Wiimote/Nunchuk. If they already bought a brand new system and an expensive game more than likely they won't buy a new controller in the go just to play with someone else. ie brother, sister, boyfriend or girlfriend.
4. We all know how poor support turns out when a peripheral doesn't come packed in with the system, besides wiimotes and nunchuks are old technology so that makes it even harder to support.
5. I read somewhere they're really cheap to make now, so it wouldn't hurt them at all to include both in the box.
Thanks =P
bgassassin
Member
Nothing personal and I know your intent (I hope) wasn't to be like luckyman, but I really wish people wouldn't use that phrase in the context that they do.
The only verified person that fits your description is lherre. At least that's posted and willingly given info.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
indeed, that's a perfect example of what I said, they can use it as a marketing point. "use the wiimote you already own with your new system!!". Added value incentive for people to move from wii to wiiU.
They could just include a bunch of videos with the system that explain which controllers you need to get for multiplayer and all that. Plus, it's not like retail stores aren't going to be reminding people as well. If a Wiimote+ isn't in the same box as the console, that doesn't mean 3rd parties will act like it doesn't exist. As long as everything is available in stores on day one, I don't think it'll be a problem.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
werddd
Sure, they can do that, but we all know the fate of peripherals that don't get included in the box. It's really as simple as that. Some games will support the remote/nunchuck as an option, that's also a given. However, it will not be considered a main control scheme by most developers if it's not included in the box.
I don't care if the system costs $5-10 more. I just want all the bases covered and it would make the most business sense to have them packed in so as to keep remotes relevant over the course of the next generation. It would be crazy to spend all this time building up remotes only to throw them to the curb next generation. Which is why I'm going in with the assumption they'll include it in the box.
Fourth Storm
Member
Precisely, we need to stop thinking of a non-packed-in Wii Remote as an "optional accessory" like Move and more like an "extra controller" which we're all used to buying in order to enjoy mp. Only diffrence is this time it's a completely different control scheme. It is an unprecedented move and comparisons to other past scenarios are invalid.
Gianni Merryman
Member
If a peripheral is not included in the box, it implies that most probably said peripheral is not going to be supported as a standard: it would mean you should ask customers to purchase separetely something else in order to play a game they're actually paying for, and that's not a smart move.
For any evidence, we may look at:
* Guitar hero series(as much as I loved GH3 I for one was not willing to purchase a new guitar-peripheral for each new iteration at full price and we all know how it ended up like)
* Games supporting Wii Balance-board as-a-standard being near to zero(although Wii-fit sold quite a bunch it apparently didn't help)
* Playstation Move(it was not in the box and it did poorly)
* WiiMotion+(how many - me included - have hold off so far buying Skyward sword just because they owned only a plain WiiRemote and didn't feel like to pay more just for one game?)
* Majora's mask(Memory add-on required, game deserved better sales, whereas Donkey Kong 64 - that bundled with the memory-expansion's add-on - sold decently AFAIK)
I suppose I could keep going on, but I think I have made my point quite clear.
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
Regardless of what your personal expectations are some of the reactions to Arkam's comments have been pretty puerile. It reminds me of that old Zelda thread where many enraged fans were calling the reviewer a fatass for giving the game a lower than expected score. Turns out he was pretty accurate with his review too.
Stay classy.
Stay classy.
But you didn't needed to buy a guitar for every Guitar Hero game. I played all games from GH3 to Rock Band 3 with the Les Paul. The only exception was Rock Band (1) on Wii, which didn't recognized it, but that port was so badly done ..and still sold so much. Still have a GHIII LesPaul for PS3 in the closet that I used to play The Beatles.
And Wii Motion Plus can be acquired for dirt cheap, heck multiple times they gave away one with the purchase of of one.
PS Move has been bundled with the PS3-hardware since the release of Move.
But yeah, in general..I agree. Though if anything, I guess accessories need to be bundled from day one with the hardware in order to get attention; more than anything. Accessories that are released as just that, additional/optional don't get much interest by developers; unless it's bundled from day one with the cosnole. Not even bundling Motion Plus for over 2 years, made developers jump into Motion Plus.
Fourth Storm
Member
In addition to my previous point about the unparalleled nature of the situation, with millions of controllers already in the homes of consumers, there is the inconvenient fact of the Classic Controller. This controller was available on Day 1 and has seen a satisfactory level of support among developers when they felt their games would benefit from a different control scheme.
Edit: As for one controller being the "standard," that is unavoidable. The U Pad will be the standard and the Wii Remote will be secondary, but still very relevant.
Gianni Merryman
Member
Hundreds of millions Wiimotes? I don't think so, it seems to me quite far-fetched honestly, although we all are aware the Wii has been a huge success worldwide.
Also, WiiRemotes or WiiMote+?
It does make quite a difference, by the way even if we had to assume there were dozens of millions of WiiMote+ around - which I don't think it's the case - it wouldn't make much sense anyway to me.
Let's put it like that, how many PS2 have been sold around the world in years? So PS3 should not have been including at least a DualShock controller in the box? It would have been a poor call in my opinion.
Just like the Nunchuk was for Wii
I don't think so. Look at Donkey Kong Country Returns with the classic controller.
I think the vast majority of wii u purchasers have a wii. Those that don't will have to make do with the bajillion cheap used wii remotes available out there.
I don't think they'll include it, you already have it.
Also, most game systems come with one controller when the companies know damn well you're going to want at least two. They expect you to buy another.
I don't think they'll include it, you already have it.
Also, most game systems come with one controller when the companies know damn well you're going to want at least two. They expect you to buy another.
But would the Nunchuk be relevant if it wasn't in the box?
Forth Storm is right about the Classic Controller. It had plenty of 3rd party support for something that wasn't included in the box, or barely even advertised. Millions of WM+ are already out in the wild and they're most likely going to be required for multiplayer, so it's safe to assume that not including one wouldn't make an impact on 3rd parties.
I still think Nintendo will develop some sort of Wii U specific secondary controller. They'll need a way to offer local multiplayer, and it might be a bit risky to just count on people already having wiimotes lying around.
It'll be a redesigned wiimote to match Wii U. Slimmer, WM+ built in, cheaper components so it costs less to produce...maybe slightly different shape and more buttons.
It'll be a redesigned wiimote to match Wii U. Slimmer, WM+ built in, cheaper components so it costs less to produce...maybe slightly different shape and more buttons.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
I was being generous, in my post before that I said most will ignore it, lol.
AceBandage
Banned
I agree. It seems they're somewhat caving in on the dual-analog setup with the subscreen, so developers will take advantage of that. I think CCpro will be the solution for 4-player games, since the wii u will not be able to handle 4 subscreens.
(as far as we know)
Grampa Simpson
Banned
So not this then I guess......
A Wireless Nunchuck (an official one) would be nice too.
In some games, like punch Out sometimes I had to fight more with the capable than with the characters in the game.
I agree. And they should throw in a nice recharging stand that holds and charges the subscreen, a couple of remotes, and a couple of nunchucks. =)
(goes out and buys a shit ton of double As)
Fourth Storm
Member
A Wireless Nunchuck (an official one) would be nice too.
In some games, like punch Out sometimes I had to fight more with the capable than with the characters in the game.
QFT: There's a much greater need for an upgraded nunchuck. The Wii Remote is perfect in design. The whole point of the damn thing is to eliminate the need for buttons.
The nunchuck, on the other hand, could use:
-wireless
-gyro and accelerometer equal to WiiMotion+
-rumble
-more sturdy design. The plastic in the current nunchuck feels cheap and the triggers are often loose right out of the box. It's definitely not in the same quality league as the Wii Remote or CC.
nordique
Member
just wanted to say this is an excellent post; cheers
nordique
Member
lttp, but yes this is very true
I should have clarified that I believe Arkam was not necessarily privy to first hand information; was mostly second hand information.
bg's post reasoning out what exactly may be the case with the Wii U kits, especially not being optimized, is huge.
I think it was blu who a long time ago pointed out that it doesn't matter how much raw muscle something may have; if its not optimized it will be a chore to get any game functioning adequately
Wii Motion Plus may be in the box now, but it really arrived too late. Companies didn't know if every user had a Wii Motion Plus so they didn't really support it. There were a few who tried, and Tiger Woods was awesome on the Wii with Wii Motion Plus. Just goes to show that if something isn't in the box when the system goes live it generally won't get supported even if they add it later. There's still all those people who didn't have one because they bought the system before the accessory was in the box.
This will be true with the remote if it's not in the box. You can bet the main reason the Wii got games like House of the Dead and Overkill is because there was a remote in every box so they knew everyone could play it if they owned a Wii. If the Wii U doesn't come with a remote in the box, you can bet that there won't be many games like that for the simple fact the developer won't know if people will have access to a remote. Not saying there won't be some companies who won't try to make games like this for the system, but there will be a certain level of uncertainty about who has the correct peripherals to play the game. Will someone who didn't own a Wii last generation go out and buy one? How many people who owned a Wii before sold it and all of their accessories? If the remote is in every box from the beginning, then there would be no doubt about who could play their game.
Really, even Kinect isn't supported all that well, but Microsoft is trying to integrate it into the system culture. You can bet the next system will have it packed in so as to guarantee everyone has one and that should lead to much better support all around.
I Stalk Alone
Member
I can't beleive there has been so much commotion in the last 24 hours over one or two speculations from a person who already stated thew saw an older dev kit.
We are definitely going to see a nintendo console being released at between $299-$349. at $299 I can see nintendo losing maybe $10 per console and the retailer breaking even which is not unheard of in this current climate. at $329 I can see Nintendo breaking even and the retailer making $20 per unit which I can see nintendo going for to make the retailer happy. at $349 nintendo can make a modest profit of $18 and the retailer making $21 per unit which is a probable scenario given what I think the power of the WiiU to become and the selling power of that tablet and the pack in software.
Let's look at a possible bill of materials for the console. I will make a small estimate that I will pull out of my butt and people in the know can fill in the outlandish prices. if they think my estimates are too high or too low. we can then speculate on what possible candidates for GPU and CPU based on this to have a semi realistic view of what kind of power we will see in the console.
Manufacturing cost. $9
Box Pack in game $9
SUB TOTAL $18
Console
Memory 16GB nand flash $10
DRAM GDDR5 or DDR 3 1.5GB $10
Processsor (SOI) $40
GPU $50
Blue Laser Drive Proprietry $19
Wireless Module a/b/g/n/proprietry $19
Wireless BB/RF/PA/NFC $15
Power Supply $9
Buttons Case Fans cooling mechanical electrical $10
Sensor bar $1
Sound IC $2
Cables $2
USB $1
SD $1
SUB TOTAL $189
Subscreen
Wireless Module $1
Gyro $1
Accel $1
Magnet $1
Speaker $1
Microphone $1
Touch panel $10
Touch Panel Controller/memory IC $5
LCD $21
Charger$2
Battery $20
Camera/sensor bar $5
Case buttons analog sticks stylus $8
SUB TOTAL $77
BOM+ manufacturing $283 which leaves $17 for freight and marketing materials.
Any other costs that go into it that I am missing out on?
If we are looking at a $50 GPU wholesale, what would be some affordable baseline candidates that can we look at assuming wholsale volume prices.?
if this pricing is way off please feel free to change so that we may get a better understanding at what nintendo can afford to pay for when it comes to GPU CPU RAM or other parts.
personally I don't think you can go past a HD6770 wholesale in terms of pricing for $50 maybe even less that than that since I don't have a clue what wholesale prices are for these things.
Maybe Nintendo might only be able to afford 4x-5x max and a minimum of maybe a GPU 2x the power compared to a xbox360 gpu.
If we look at gamecube and what should have been a proper generational upgrade path for wii which should have been around 3x-5x the power of GC gpu plus modern shaders then an upgrade path five years from that date (plus the extra time this generation has already had), then a GPU around 2x-3x the power of the xbox 360 is what we should be expecting from nintendo. What most people would want is of course 5x the power to take us into 720p samaritan territory and maybe close enough to parity with xbox3 and PS4 which may or may not be possible depending on the costs of other parts.
We are definitely going to see a nintendo console being released at between $299-$349. at $299 I can see nintendo losing maybe $10 per console and the retailer breaking even which is not unheard of in this current climate. at $329 I can see Nintendo breaking even and the retailer making $20 per unit which I can see nintendo going for to make the retailer happy. at $349 nintendo can make a modest profit of $18 and the retailer making $21 per unit which is a probable scenario given what I think the power of the WiiU to become and the selling power of that tablet and the pack in software.
Let's look at a possible bill of materials for the console. I will make a small estimate that I will pull out of my butt and people in the know can fill in the outlandish prices. if they think my estimates are too high or too low. we can then speculate on what possible candidates for GPU and CPU based on this to have a semi realistic view of what kind of power we will see in the console.
Manufacturing cost. $9
Box Pack in game $9
SUB TOTAL $18
Console
Memory 16GB nand flash $10
DRAM GDDR5 or DDR 3 1.5GB $10
Processsor (SOI) $40
GPU $50
Blue Laser Drive Proprietry $19
Wireless Module a/b/g/n/proprietry $19
Wireless BB/RF/PA/NFC $15
Power Supply $9
Buttons Case Fans cooling mechanical electrical $10
Sensor bar $1
Sound IC $2
Cables $2
USB $1
SD $1
SUB TOTAL $189
Subscreen
Wireless Module $1
Gyro $1
Accel $1
Magnet $1
Speaker $1
Microphone $1
Touch panel $10
Touch Panel Controller/memory IC $5
LCD $21
Charger$2
Battery $20
Camera/sensor bar $5
Case buttons analog sticks stylus $8
SUB TOTAL $77
BOM+ manufacturing $283 which leaves $17 for freight and marketing materials.
Any other costs that go into it that I am missing out on?
If we are looking at a $50 GPU wholesale, what would be some affordable baseline candidates that can we look at assuming wholsale volume prices.?
if this pricing is way off please feel free to change so that we may get a better understanding at what nintendo can afford to pay for when it comes to GPU CPU RAM or other parts.
personally I don't think you can go past a HD6770 wholesale in terms of pricing for $50 maybe even less that than that since I don't have a clue what wholesale prices are for these things.
Maybe Nintendo might only be able to afford 4x-5x max and a minimum of maybe a GPU 2x the power compared to a xbox360 gpu.
If we look at gamecube and what should have been a proper generational upgrade path for wii which should have been around 3x-5x the power of GC gpu plus modern shaders then an upgrade path five years from that date (plus the extra time this generation has already had), then a GPU around 2x-3x the power of the xbox 360 is what we should be expecting from nintendo. What most people would want is of course 5x the power to take us into 720p samaritan territory and maybe close enough to parity with xbox3 and PS4 which may or may not be possible depending on the costs of other parts.
Fourth Storm
Member
Such a scenario is plausible and worth assessing, but I think when it comes down to costs and the reality of it, Nintendo will bank on the opposite. Namely, almost all Wii U early adopters will also own a Wii and numerous remotes/peripherals. It was a hugely successful platform. And let's be honest here: Wii U, while reaching out more to the hardcore audience, is not in any way focused on it - not if last E3's concept video was any indicator. Though you can bet that the here-and-there cases of the "converted dudebro" will be headline fodder for some of the sites out there.
And if there is a former PS360 gamer, or any consumer who did not own a Wii, buying a Wii Remote will be their only choice for the surely substantial amount of multiplayer titles. Until they say otherwise, Nintendo are not selling that controller separately - not at first. The system itself is costly. In this economy, an expensive controller on top of it would completely alienate their core audience of kids and parents. If they do price the system at $299 bare bones, as PS1 and PS2 did, they have a great chance at penetrating the mass market. Extra Wii Remotes (identical but perhaps w/ Wii U compatible branding) sold besides this modestly priced console will help add to their profit whereas selling the tablet at cost for $100 or so will not. It's actually quite devious if they do support two tablets in games (Madden is essentially a lock for this) and the only chance to experience this awesome concept is if 2 people own the system. More systems sold = a happier Nintendo and deeper third party support.
bgassassin
Member
Thank you for all the compliments.
IMO your console cost is too low and the controller cost is kind of high. I don't see the controller costing Nintendo more than $50. One way to bring down the cost in your estimate would be the battery. I don't see them using a battery that costs that much. And some of the other components may not cost a whole dollar, but I'm assuming you did that to make the math easier.
With the console I believe your system memory, GPU, and CPU costs are too low. It would be nice, but I doubt they can get the memory for $10 (no Newegg references please
). The GPU will most likely include the eDRAM increasing its cost. I also have a tough time seeing the CPU only being $40. You also must remember that it will have an ARM core(s) so that's another cost. And the accessories including the cables will more than likely be more than $2.My guesstimate has been that the console will cost them around $300 and the controller around $50. And because it falls around $350, that's why they have to decide if they will sell it for a loss or not.
Addressing some points in this thread made over the last few pages:
1) It is strategically impossible for the Wii U to be equivalent to the 360 and PS3. It has to be stronger. Nintendo is stubborn but it's not stupid; it is quite aware of why the Wii ran out of steam and how much more having 3rd party support could have impacted its lifespan. They also know 3rd party support and online network are the only two things their competitors have on them. It is ridiculous to state that they have an intention of dealing with the latter (online) and not the former.
2) It would be wise of Nintendo to include a Remote U alongside the uPad with every console sold. Yes, there are a shit-ton of remotes out there, but it's better to have a certain baseline standard for the local multi than have variability amongst those available.
1) It is strategically impossible for the Wii U to be equivalent to the 360 and PS3. It has to be stronger. Nintendo is stubborn but it's not stupid; it is quite aware of why the Wii ran out of steam and how much more having 3rd party support could have impacted its lifespan. They also know 3rd party support and online network are the only two things their competitors have on them. It is ridiculous to state that they have an intention of dealing with the latter (online) and not the former.
2) It would be wise of Nintendo to include a Remote U alongside the uPad with every console sold. Yes, there are a shit-ton of remotes out there, but it's better to have a certain baseline standard for the local multi than have variability amongst those available.
TheExplodingHead
Banned
I agree, it would help with market saturation as well as encourage control option diversity for dev's to work into production. Otherwise we'll see a lot less emphasis on control options and almost no emphasis on dev's being able to pick and choose the most viable control option for X game, and instead force the Upad into every game. I'm still holding out for a next gen gamepad though, would really round out all possible preferred methods. It's really long overdue for consoles to have similar control options that we PC gamers have always enjoyed.
Probably it has been said already, but I just realized something regarding Wii U pricing.
Iwata had previously said:"The Wii U will "likely" cost more than ¥20,000 ($250/£150), Nintendo leader Satoru Iwata has revealed. "
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-08-iwata-wii-u-price-likely-over-USD250
And Reggie had a few months ago made that weird comment about disposable income:
"AllThingsD: Does that change as we get closer to the next-generation console, the Wii U?
Reggie: The market is going to continue to differentiate based on the types of experiences that consumers want. As an example, if Im the head of a household of a family of four, and my disposable income is $50,000 to $60,000, Im going to continue to look at the Wii because of the software, and its a great entertainment device. For consumers who want to have the latest gadgets and have a higher disposable income, thats for the Wii U."
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=456595
Now, maybe I am reading too much into it, but when has Nintendo ever implied what their next console will cost so far ahead before release?
They are pretty much early on giving signals (a heads up if you will) that the Wii U will cost more than expected. And I don´t think 50 USD more, as in $299. If it was going to cost $299, do you guys think Nintendo would bother saying anything about pricing so early on?
Therefore I am thinking at least 100 USD more, as in $349 (max $399). Even including the tablet, I hardly think the power level of the Wii U would be that low(considering the price).
I agree with bgassassins awesome post on what to expect.
Iwata had previously said:"The Wii U will "likely" cost more than ¥20,000 ($250/£150), Nintendo leader Satoru Iwata has revealed. "
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-08-iwata-wii-u-price-likely-over-USD250
And Reggie had a few months ago made that weird comment about disposable income:
"AllThingsD: Does that change as we get closer to the next-generation console, the Wii U?
Reggie: The market is going to continue to differentiate based on the types of experiences that consumers want. As an example, if Im the head of a household of a family of four, and my disposable income is $50,000 to $60,000, Im going to continue to look at the Wii because of the software, and its a great entertainment device. For consumers who want to have the latest gadgets and have a higher disposable income, thats for the Wii U."
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=456595
Now, maybe I am reading too much into it, but when has Nintendo ever implied what their next console will cost so far ahead before release?
They are pretty much early on giving signals (a heads up if you will) that the Wii U will cost more than expected. And I don´t think 50 USD more, as in $299. If it was going to cost $299, do you guys think Nintendo would bother saying anything about pricing so early on?
Therefore I am thinking at least 100 USD more, as in $349 (max $399). Even including the tablet, I hardly think the power level of the Wii U would be that low(considering the price).
I agree with bgassassins awesome post on what to expect.
JonathanPower
Member
This point is not very relevant, no one is gonna buy the Wii U just to play Xbox360/PS4 ports people is gonna buy the Wii U for the exclusive games. The GFX on the Wii U will be great enough in my opinion to also please people who love great GFX, if you will not want to play stripped down ports on the Wii U then you will buy an xboxnext or a PS4.
JonathanPower
Member
The Wii had a DX7 GPU and the first XBOX had a DX8.1 GPU so i don't get why it was fine for the Wii to have outdated hw but it's such a tragedy if the Wii U will came out with a decent current gen DX10 hw...
ReyVGM
Member
Yeah, what I got from that quote back then was that if you are poor/cheap/casual, then get the Wii. If you have cash to spend on tech and are hardcore/dudebro, then get the Wii U.
The point is relevant if Nintendo is serious about receiving 3rd party support. Most families won't want to buy a new system for an upgraded version of a game and because the wii U will still be able to scale for downports they won't need to.
JonathanPower
Member
If the Wii U will have great sales it will receive 3rd party support with exclusive games which is much betten than playing ports, you act like Nintendo is doing something different than what they did till now.
I want superior ports of RE6 and GTA5 that take advantage of the Wii U's strengths.
But if third party support is going to be mostly 360/PS3 ports, I think most people will be disappointed. People aren't buying a new console to get ports of current gen games. That isn't opinion. That is fact. And third parties will be disappointed when they see how bad their ports will sell on Wii U compared to 360/PS3, and then Wii U will end up in the same third party situation.
People only buy Nintendo systems for the exclusives they can't get on Xbox and Playstation and PC.
But if third party support is going to be mostly 360/PS3 ports, I think most people will be disappointed. People aren't buying a new console to get ports of current gen games. That isn't opinion. That is fact. And third parties will be disappointed when they see how bad their ports will sell on Wii U compared to 360/PS3, and then Wii U will end up in the same third party situation.
People only buy Nintendo systems for the exclusives they can't get on Xbox and Playstation and PC.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
You're comparing Hollywood's fixed-function TCL flops* to Xenos' unified-shader programmable flops. This comparison is as meaningless as they come.
* Flipper does not rely on floating-point for pixel shading, except possibly for tex-addressing, and I have doubts about that either.
- Status