All they've explicitly stated is that it's Power Architecture based. Some people assumed they were talking POWER7 when they mentioned the Watson, but that was pretty up in the air in terms of what was meant ("technology found in Watson" could mean that type of chip, but it could just refer to the architecture). Unless I missed something more concrete.
All they've explicitly stated is that it's Power Architecture based. Some people assumed they were talking POWER7 when they mentioned the Watson, but that was pretty up in the air in terms of what was meant ("technology found in Watson" could mean that type of chip, but it could just refer to the architecture). Unless I missed something more concrete.
And the target specs said "PowerPC". After seeing IBM retread the "technology found in Watson" statement elsewhere and Nintendo's penchant for customization I'm more than ready to see/hear what this thing looks like.
All they've explicitly stated is that it's Power Architecture based. Some people assumed they were talking POWER7 when they mentioned the Watson, but that was pretty up in the air in terms of what was meant ("technology found in Watson" could mean that type of chip, but it could just refer to the architecture). Unless I missed something more concrete.
Well, there was the IBM guy on Twitter, although I take that with a bit of a grain of salt. Bottom line is that IBM have improved their technology since they developed Xenon. That much is clear. And the L1 and L2 cache used in Watson I would argue is as integral to what constitutes "Watson technology" as anything else. No reason to use dated SRAM when they've been in full swing using their current technology for years now.
I know there's been speculation on IBM's Watson comparison referring merely to L3 cache, but lherre has explicitly stated (and I believe him) that there is no L3 cache on Wii U's CPU. The eDRAM is on the GPU not the CPU. That leaves the core logic and L1 and L2 caches as far as "Watson" technology goes. The most logical conclusion drawn from some of the analysis here is that the Wii U CPU will based on POWER7, but most likely stripped of eDRAM, trimmed on logic, and buffed on L2 cache.
Well, there was the IBM guy on Twitter, although I take that with a bit of a grain of salt. Bottom line is that IBM have improved their technology since they developed Xenon. That much is clear. And the L1 and L2 cache used in Watson I would argue is as integral to what constitutes "Watson technology" as anything else. No reason to use dated SRAM when they've been in full swing using their current technology for years now.
I know there's been speculation on IBM's Watson comparison referring merely to L3 cache, but lherre has explicitly stated (and I believe him) that there is no L3 cache on Wii U's CPU. The eDRAM is on the GPU not the CPU. That leaves the core logic and L1 and L2 caches as far as "Watson" technology goes. The most logical conclusion drawn from some of the analysis here is that the Wii U CPU will based on POWER7, but most likely stripped of eDRAM, trimmed on logic, and buffed on L2 cache.
Yep. This was something I mentioned in the first thread and it continues to be on that track. I still maintain that anyone who wants to buy a Wii U will be very happy with their purchase and I have no reason to change from that view.
people love IdeaMan post even when they are vague and hardly say anything it gives us a fuzzy feeling that we have an insider posting real news... it keeps the insane levels calm
we need our daily IdeaMan posts... when it all turns out false we can see everyone scream for a perm ban
The thing is, he's being just vague enough so that he might have some wiggle room if things come out a bit different.
That said, I love when he's around. At the bare minimum, we get damn good entertainment from his personality - and from the conversations that are spurred by his taunts, clues, and HYPE are fantastic. (thanks, IdeaMan!)
Then again, I get a kick out of a ton of NintendoGAFfers. I'd be typing for a while if I had to go from person to person here.
Yep. This was something I mentioned in the first thread and it continues to be on that track. I still maintain that anyone who wants to buy a Wii U will be very happy with their purchase and I have no reason to change from that view.
I'd love a sequel to Super Mario World. It would have to include the Cape, though. And perhaps Yoshi, with the different-colored shell abilities returning.
And maybe another bonus area, like Star Road.
And secret exits - exits that you have to carry a large key to.
And the Tanooki Suit.
And Kuribo's Boot. Lots of Kuribo's Boot.
*sigh*
{and I'm loving how positively confident bgassassin and ShockingAlberto are these days. If they're right - and I absolutely think that they are - this is going to be a very FUN E3 here at NeoGAF. hehehe..}
I'd love a sequel to Super Mario World. It would have to include the Cape, though. And perhaps Yoshi, with the different-colored shell abilities returning.
And maybe another bonus area, like Star Road.
And secret exits - exits that you have to carry a large key to.
And the Tanooki Suit.
And Kuribo's Boot. Lots of Kuribo's Boot.
*sigh*
{and I'm loving how positively confident bgassassin and ShockingAlberto are these days. If they're right - and I absolutely think that they are - this is going to be a very FUN E3 here at NeoGAF. hehehe..}
Well, there was the IBM guy on Twitter, although I take that with a bit of a grain of salt. Bottom line is that IBM have improved their technology since they developed Xenon. That much is clear. And the L1 and L2 cache used in Watson I would argue is as integral to what constitutes "Watson technology" as anything else. No reason to use dated SRAM when they've been in full swing using their current technology for years now.
I know there's been speculation on IBM's Watson comparison referring merely to L3 cache, but lherre has explicitly stated (and I believe him) that there is no L3 cache on Wii U's CPU. The eDRAM is on the GPU not the CPU. That leaves the core logic and L1 and L2 caches as far as "Watson" technology goes. The most logical conclusion drawn from some of the analysis here is that the Wii U CPU will based on POWER7, but most likely stripped of eDRAM, trimmed on logic, and buffed on L2 cache.
Except IBM confirmed that the CPU itself will have eDRAM. Which would mean that the L2 cache is eDRAM, something IBM also does on the PowerEN and A2. IBM also uses the term "Watson technology" for their Cu-45HP process - the very same process the Wii U CPU is confirmed to use.
The thing about Mario is this: I immediately become 8 years old again when I'm playing Mario. When it's good, it's sublime. I'm a Zelda FREAK, but Zelda doesn't make me tear-up from just sheer euphoria in the same way that a good Mario game does. It's just different.
After this damn move is over and I'm settled-in, I'm replaying through both Galaxy 1 and 2. Every star will be obtained! A summer of my favorite Mario will be a very good, fitting way to say goodbye to my Wii. After that, my gaming stops. I'll be too scatterbrained and distracted as we get close to launch, glued to the internet for any details I can find.
Nintendo made Wii Connect 24 sound like the coolest idea ever but it seriously wasn't anywhere close to how they described it. I thought they way they described it was your system would always be online and they would send you new levels, new characters, new features even when you weren't playing to expand the game play of older games. But it was nothing like that. It was just updates to fix bugs or update your system so it won't play Wii hack stuff.
But why would this warrant a swift kick to the family jewels for Iwata? How were they "incredibly arrogant" and "shortsighted"?
This I fail to see, and your reasoning here does not explain that.
Your logic when you mention Unreal as an example is flawed, since Nintendo had their design by that time.
In hindsight, even Nintendo acknowledged they were wrong, so I don't see what the issue is. There are so many factors they could not have foreseen in 2004/2005 when they were finalizing their business model for the Wii, all the way to leading up to launch.
One must consider the transitional stage they were in, the fact they were braving a new portable, and facing doom & gloom articles among stiff competition from the PS2. Their "traditional way" of thinking did not suit them well.
Put in another, more simpler way, had Iwata not had the balls in the first place to do something drastic, and very much needed regardless of subjective opinions of the console, you may very well have not been able to anticipate a Wii U release today.
edit - as an added note, it should be quite apparent that Nintendo has no control over what third parties choose to do. Nintendo learned the hard way why games such as GTA did not appear on their system even though Reggie tried his best to court Take-Two for a Wii GTA.
Again, don't forget the current people behind Nintendo have only been at this since the DS and Wii launch. The "Iwata era" has much more potential than the Yamauchi era ever did, in my opinion.
UE3 started development in 2002 and was presented in 2004. I find it hard to believe that if Nintendo had have gone to Epic (Or any other major player to be honest) they couldn't have got some information about where they were heading and what they thought of the console space's direction. That is shortsightedness and arrogance.
Online. I'd been using online heavily since the early 90's. The internet was growing rapidly during the Gamecube era. XBOX had fully embraced online in the previous generation. You'd have to be totally blinkered to think that online was not going to be a massive drawcard and play a big part in gamer's lives. Nintendo took a sloth like shuffle into this space. Shortsighted.
Nintendo's arrogance is well documented throughout their history. They have had little but disdain for third parties and even 2 whole generations after it hit it's arguably worst time (N64) they are still struggling to get that support. That is the sign of arrogance to me. If Nintendo had have got their heads out of their own arses, did what they do best (Create amazing games) and catered Wii more to what 3rd parties wanted, I believe the Wii wouldn't be suffering the agonising death that it is now and gamers like me would have got a much broader selection of games on it.
Now don't get me wrong, I think things are changing and the 3DS is an example of that. DLC, Demos, actually working eshop (Albeit with flaws) are all great but all we have is rhetoric from Iwata so far. I'm sick of Nintendo's bullshit talk, I want real action.
I'm a Nintendo gamer. I've been playing their games since arcade Donkey Kong. Wii was the first current gen console I owned. I love their core franchises. But just like they treat customers as people who generate income for them, I treat them like any company - they need to make products I want. It's got to the point that Zelda and Metroid alone won't hold me to their systems and frankly for the last 2 generations that's pretty much all I feel I have got from them.
I want to play online and it not be a pain in the arse (friend codes). I want to have DLC when it's smartly done. I want to play demos of games for christ sake before I decide to buy them. I want all these kick arse third party games that the Wii just did not get. Nintendo can ignore me as that's their perogative. They can release an 8bit machine that only plays Mario, that's fine. But I don't have to buy it.
As far as I'm concerned E3 2012 it's make or break for me.
My issues with this line of thinking is that nothing Nintendo accomplished with Wii would have been changed by less embarrassing hardware. Everybody likes to talk about it in the extremes. It's either lose $500 per console and have 100 million dollar budgets, or overclock the Gamecube and enjoy 6 more years of last-gen. Where's the middle ground? They did NOT have to release this tremendous loss leader that was at (or even near) parity with PS360 to have a better shot at serious third parties and core gamers. They just needed something that was intelligently designed (see Gamecube in 2001), based on a (then) contemporary architecture, and was clearly beyond last-gen. Maybe this means they sold it at $279, maybe they even lost $20 a unit for the first year. Succeed or fail, it wouldn't have really mattered. The risk would have been so minor, and their resources so plentiful, the difference between the Wii we got and this proposed Super Wii would have been like a fart in the wind financially. Fact of the matter is, they pinched pennies and you got a much lesser product because of it. I would hazard a guess you would have enjoyed your "thousands of hours" a lot more if the graphics were more pleasing, or the developers were able to do bigger and better things.
The thing about Mario is this: I immediately become 8 years old again when I'm playing Mario. When it's good, it's sublime. I'm a Zelda FREAK, but Zelda doesn't make me tear-up from just sheer euphoria in the same way that a good Mario game does. It's just different.
What did not occur to me was why was/is Nintendo testing & optimizing these various engines, adjusting & tweaking hw specifications, etc.? From its inception Nintendo was touting the Wii U's ease of portability, why the change? The most obvious answer was 3rd party engine compatibility, though it had to be more than that. I spoke of the Nintendo "footprint," & it could have indeed been larger than I initially thought.
Were 3rd parties were having trouble initially with the CPU perhaps? Instruction sets are typically tailored, or highly customized by the console vendor based upon their particular performance needs. IIRC, the GC's Gekko had an additional set of 50 instructions to the PowerPC 750 on which it was based. (as well as stripping away non-essential features) Nintendo is again going with IBM's PowerPC architecture. The rumored OoOe tri-core CPU with 2-way SMT appears legitimate. Why this seems unbelievable has me bewildered, & questioning posters incredulity. Is this based upon the very cheaply produced, severely underpowered Wii? (which btw was a first on the Nintendo home console front) I would have to assume so. The 32mb embedded ram is not as cost prohibitive as many of you might believe.
Seems he heard the same thing I did... Nintendo was tweaking the HW to work more favorably with "popular" engines. In my case it was specifically Unreal Engine 4.
Mario is the only Nintendo franchise that interests me at this point.
That being said, they need to increase difficulty and remove the 120 star structure.
The NES games were a matter of survival. It seems that in the N64-Wii games it's challenge is "not falling off the edge" and things of that nature.
Anything beyond 2 hits is too much.
Mario is the only Nintendo franchise that interests me at this point.
That being said, they need to increase difficulty and remove the 120 star structure.
The NES games were a matter of survival. It seems that in the N64-Wii games it's challenge is "not falling off the edge" and things of that nature.
Anything beyond 2 hits is too much.
Except IBM confirmed that the CPU itself will have eDRAM. Which would mean that the L2 cache is eDRAM, something IBM also does on the PowerEN and A2. IBM also uses the term "Watson technology" for their Cu-45HP process - the very same process the Wii U CPU is confirmed to use.
As far as that last bit goes, if it was merely the process they were referring to, it'd be one of those throw my arms up moments. That's alot of spin in that case. 45nm is pretty commonly used as far as I know. Now about the eDRAM as L2, I had thought about that and thank you for bringing it up again. I don't have a direct comparison of the latencies in front of me, but I can imagine if it was lower than Xenon's but higher than a true POWER7's, Nintendo would settle. On the other hand, the L2 on PS3's Cell is SRAM is it not? And that's about the amount we're talking here...
I've also always thought IBM were alluding to their eDRAM being used in conjunction with the GPU. At the least, they can produce a 32nm chip with 32 MB eDRAM that interacts w/ the GPU Xenos style. I've even wondered if they've somehow integrated it more and actually put it right on the GPU, but that's setting my hopes a tad high perhaps.
Fair enough positions, Azak, and I certainly understand. I actually agree with a lot of what you've posted, although I personally don't give much of a damn about online as I think it's incredibly overrated and fraught with peril going into the future.
I hate the temptation that DLC provides to software makers, and to see gamers defending these actions is downright embarrassing. I don't even trust Nintendo with DLC, even if they promise with sugar on top that they'll be good.
I loathe the idea that someday we'll be getting most if not all of our games via digital distribution instead of physical copies.
I also hate the idea that we might not be able to play our games without checking-into some far-away database that may or may not always be available.
I hate the random online gaming experience found on LIVE and other similar networks; ironically enough, they're filled with foul-mouthed little middle and high-schoolers acting like shitcocks who're desperately trying to be mature. On some afternoons, it sounds like Andrew Dice Clay is running a goddamn daycare center on there. (YES - I'm throwing the 'immature' insult right back at the other console.)
I see this trend where many developers can provide a cheap, flimsy single-player experience in a game.. and they can get away with it by pointing and saying, "But look at that multiplayer experience! So good!"
These ideas sicken me, and fill me with dread about the whole thing. Honestly, I've been happy that Nintendo drags its feet with online, but I've mostly been quiet about it around here because so many people think that online is a requirement in order for a game to be "good." I'm a 1990s-mindset gamer stuck going forward into the future, it seems, as far as online goes.. which is why you guys and gals seldom see me joining in with the chorus of whining about Nintendo's online structure.
Please put those torches and pitchforks down. Please?
I'll openly admit: I see some benefits to online. As stated earlier, I'd love to see the Nsider forums resurrected into some form of channel on the console, with the uPad functioning as a keyboard (or with a keyboard peripheral, sold separately).
I'd love to be able to play matches with friends from far away without having to deal with those damn long strings of numbers and letters; they're a pain in the ass, and I hope that Nintendo has been embarrassed to the point where they never speak of these "Friend Codes" again.. except for maybe pointing out what NOT to do for an online structure.
And I'd love to be able to keep track of my Accomplishments, or whatever Nintendo ends-up calling them. But spare me the quantifiable number of any kind of score. Anything similar to what Steam has would be fantastic in that regard.
Plus, I'd love to be able to mod my games. Especially the western games that I like
(yep - I have dudebro tendencies! surprise!)
, as the vanilla versions of these games are often lacking, and I'd like the option of being able to correct those deficient areas of each game - but there are different ways to correct those deficiencies, so I'd like the option of choosing which mod(s) to go with.
So that's my position regarding online, in a nutshell. If I had my way, Nintendo would drag their feet, and I'd be perfectly happy. But if it shuts-up the incessant waaah waaah waah whining from the "No online? Then I rate it a 2/10" crowd, then let's get this ball rollin'.
Yep. This was something I mentioned in the first thread and it continues to be on that track. I still maintain that anyone who wants to buy a Wii U will be very happy with their purchase and I have no reason to change from that view.
That's a relief to know that there are some out there who understand me on this. I rarely get nervous about posting my opinion on things any more, especially in here, but for some reason I was a bit apprehensive about this one.
I took an entire week off from work for each Galaxy game. And when I found-out that they were going to be orchestrated, I went out before the first one launched and grabbed my first home theatre speaker/amplifier system so that I could get a better experience. Very much worth it!
Fact of the matter is, they pinched pennies and you got a much lesser product because of it. I would hazard a guess you would have enjoyed your "thousands of hours" a lot more if the graphics were more pleasing, or the developers were able to do bigger and better things.
If this is the conclusion these posts are coming to, I don't think they're worth it.
If you didn't like the Wii or felt it lacking, you can explain why. You can complain. You can criticize. That's fine, because you're experiencing dissatisfaction.
But if you did like the Wii and the games on it, there's no obligation to demand more. You're allowed to enjoy what you enjoy without stressing whether you could have been having a better experience. You're not obligated to be dissatisfied just because others are.
You know, this is what makes people fanboys. Other people say that the games and consoles they're playing are inferior and it makes them feel they need to prove that the games they spent hours playing weren't inferior.
I said this exact same thing before on the second thread I believe.
If Nintendo wants to really do something new with their online system this is exactly what they should do
(fully integrated social networking+reward incentives on their only system)
Points for registering bought games, providing feedback, beating games, etc.
These points can be exchanged (at a reasonable rate) for rewards such as VC downloads.
Nah. Wind Waker is up there, but below the crescent and on the negative slope of the peak.
Pretty much like Lion King for Disney.
Beauty and the Beast + Aladdin are OOT and MM of course.
Seems he heard the same thing I did... Nintendo was tweaking the HW to work more favorably with "popular" engines. In my case it was specifically Unreal Engine 4.
I said this exact same thing before on the second thread I believe.
If Nintendo wants to really do something new with their online system this is exactly what they should do
(fully integrated social networking+reward incentives on their only system)
Points for registering bought games, providing feedback, beating games, etc.
These points can be exchanged (at a reasonable rate) for rewards such as VC downloads.
I said this exact same thing before on the second thread I believe.
If Nintendo wants to really do something new with their online system this is exactly what they should do
(fully integrated social networking+reward incentives on their only system) Points for registering bought games, providing feedback, beating games, etc.
These points can be exchanged (at a reasonable rate) for rewards such as VC downloads.
I don't think they are afraid of competition first party titles. (They have to compete with mega titles like COD and Halo on other platforms)
The difference is that they know how to cater to and make games that will sell to that audience. The only people that can make nintendo-like games is Nintendo.
I believe it is more of a perceived audience mismatch, rather than competition from Nintendo.
Third parties made plenty of games for Wii. They were just terrible Wii sports clones.
Again, if they were afraid of direct competition, they would have provided complementary experiences instead.
I know. and i love that u can download games in exchange for coins. My hope was for a fully unified experience. ie club nintendo account is the same as your NiN account. I would be very happy.
