Support NeoGAF

[The_Lump]

Or they could just make a $350-399 box with modern specs like Sony and MS' next systems, instead of a last gen machine with an expensive tablet controller.

Oh, sorry, was I interrupting your fantasy?

Seeing as you must have a WiiU devkit and have cracked it open to analyse the hardware so thoroughly, what makes it "last gen"?

 

[Shion]

Stupid idea tell that to intel. There's a lot more to what you're saying than oh it's old and bad.

True.

So, do you actually believe that Nintendo invested in R&D in order to create some kind of new powerful CPU derived from the old PowerPC 750 architecture?

 

[PhantomR]

Or they could just make a $350-399 box with modern specs like Sony and MS' next systems, instead of a last gen machine with an expensive tablet controller.

Oh, sorry, was I interrupting your fantasy?

 

[gamergirly]

Or they could just make a $350-399 box with modern specs like Sony and MS' next systems, instead of a last gen machine with an expensive tablet controller.

And they will eat billions in costs, unknownest to an oblivous owner

 

[Pie and Beans]

And they will eat billions in costs, unknownest to an oblivous owner

I think current owners are going to be made pretty aware of lacking power this time next year.

Weird topic bump this has experienced. Guess it couldnt be laid to rest that the WiiU doesn't exactly have sterling specs; the good fight must continue!

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

And they will eat billions in costs, unknownest to an oblivous owner

I'm sure the owner will care more about the losses of the companies rather that having a way more modern tech in his console at less cost...

 

[Alex]

To be fair, Nintendo has done a pretty good job eating giant loses and tanking their stock even WITH old tech. =/

 

[H_Prestige]

And they will eat billions in costs, unknownest to an oblivous owner

Yeah, that totally ruins the user experience. Just like unlimited demos.

Thank god we have nintendo to stick up for the customer.

 

[Freezie KO]

I'm sure the owner will care more about the losses of the companies rather that having a way more modern tech in his console at less cost...

As a Wii U owner, it'd be awesome if they released something on par with Durango for the same cost. Great for me as a consumer.

But let's not pretend as if the PS3 wasn't $600 and Microsoft doesn't make up their money charging $60/year to play games you've already bought. Costs get passed down to the consumer all the time.

 

[Zombie James]

And they will eat billions in costs, unknownest to an oblivous owner

Pretty sure people would notice.

As a Wii U owner, it'd be awesome if they released something on par with Durango for the same cost. Great for me as a consumer.

But let's not pretend as if the PS3 wasn't $600 and Microsoft doesn't make up their money charging $60/year to play games you've already bought. Costs get passed down to the consumer all the time.

In the case of the PS3 no costs got passed down to the consumer since Sony was losing $250-300 per unit.

 

[H_Prestige]

As a Wii U owner, it'd be awesome if they released something on par with Durango for the same cost. Great for me as a consumer.

But let's not pretend as if the PS3 wasn't $600 and Microsoft doesn't make up their money charging $60/year to play games you've already bought. Costs get passed down to the consumer all the time.

360 wasn't $600.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The PS1 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299, was a successful and profitable venture.

The PS2 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299, was a successful and profitable venture.

The 360 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299/$399, was a successful and profitable venture.

Why are people under the impression that launching a system with a significant technological leap at even $399 can't be a successful and profitable venture. That a new console must either be technologically gimped, prohibitively expensive, or bankruptcy-inducingly subsidised.

Is it the false dichotomy the PS3 and the Wii created this gen? Is it because of whatever creative accounting or poor supplier deals ends up with a loss per unit, Wii U?

And before people bring up "inflation" I don't really thing the CPI applies to such technology.

 

[Freezie KO]

360 wasn't $600.

How much did you buy one for? When? How many years have you been paying for Live?

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

360 wasn't $600.

He didn't say it was.

 

[Pie and Beans]

How much did you buy one for? When? How many years have you been paying for Live?

How many Nintendo games are you playing online at launch? Look, theres way too much slinging shit at the "other guys" when it comes to these kinds of threads. Nintendo isn't going to have fucked up less even if J.Allard came and did a shit in your front lounge back in 2006.

 

[H_Prestige]

How much did you buy one for? When? How many years have you been paying for Live?

Are you implying that MS created Live to make up for 360 hardware costs? They did it to make even more money, and because they could get away with it. Nobody is launching $600 consoles anymore, because it's suicide. I really don't why you brought that up.

Expect both next gen consoles to be priced pretty damn close to the Wii U. Which btw is also being sold at a loss per unit.

He didn't say it was.

I didn't say he did. I was simply adding an additional fact to his post.

 

[LCGeek]

True.

So, do you actually believe that Nintendo invested in R&D in order to create some kind of new powerful CPU derived from the old PowerPC 750 architecture?

Not one bit. Nintendo has been flaky on this issue and is only concerned with having on single platform that can go anywhere. We can see where the effort or focus is going if they can make it another generation or two we might see something decent but until then low powered setups all the way.I'm as puzzled as anyone else is I just don't see the need to expect them to change cause they are quite stubborn about this.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

I didn't say he did. I was simply adding an additional fact to his post.

lol. okay I didn't say you said he did either. I was simply adding an additional fact to your post.

 

[wsippel]

The PS1 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299, was a successful and profitable venture.

The PS2 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299, was a successful and profitable venture.

The 360 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299/$399, was a successful and profitable venture.

Why are people under the impression that launching a system with a significant technological leap at even $399 can't be a successful and profitable venture. That a new console must either be technologically gimped, prohibitively expensive, or bankruptcy-inducingly subsidised.

Is it the false dichotomy the PS3 and the Wii created this gen? Is it because of whatever creative accounting or poor supplier deals ends up with a loss per unit, Wii U?

And before people bring up "inflation" I don't really thing the CPI applies to such technology.

Well, one thing to consider is that PS1 -> PS2 -> 360 got a good bit of performance out of increasing the power consumption dramatically from generation to generation (like 10W -> 50W -> 200W), and we hit a brick wall in that regard. If you can't increase the power consumption, you have to increase the transistor count instead, and that's way more expensive than a slightly bigger heat sink and another fan.

 

[Darryl]

Why are people under the impression that launching a system with a significant technological leap at even $399 can't be a successful and profitable venture. That it must either be technologically gimped, prohibitively expensive, or bankruptcy inducingly subsidised.

Is it the false dichotomy the PS3 and the Wii created this gen? Is it because of whatever creative accounting or poor supplier deals ends up with a loss per unit, Wii U?

And before people bring up "inflation" I don't really thing the CPI applies to such technology.

we're not living in the 90s' or even early 00's anymore. normal people now have yearly technology expenses. they need to make their product a better value, not a worse one.

 

[Freezie KO]

How many Nintendo games are you playing online at launch? Look, theres way too much slinging shit at the "other guys" when it comes to these kinds of threads. Nintendo isn't going to have fucked up less even if J.Allard came and did a shit in your front lounge back in 2006.

I'm playing one game at launch online. For zero added cost. My point is that costs get passed down to consumers. So this idea of a $350 console with the bleeding-edge latest tech and no added costs is just fantasy. Show me one that exists. That's the point.

Aside from a slow OS and hardware lock ups, I don't think Nintendo "fucked up." They knew what they were making. And most consumers are able to make the decision that the console isn't going to be a powerhouse yet will still house games they want to play.

Are you implying that MS created Live to make up for 360 hardware costs? They did it to make even more money, and because they could get away with it. Nobody is launching $600 consoles anymore, because it's suicide. I really don't why you brought that up.

Expect both next gen consoles to be priced pretty damn close to the Wii U. Which btw is also being sold at a loss per unit.

I wasn't aware that the Durango and Orbis have announced their prices yet. If Wii U is losing money at launch for the level of hardware that it is, then the real suicide is for Nintendo to make a box that's identical to the next Xbox and PS4 and try to sell it for $400.

As for Live, you said that the 360 wasn't $600. If you own one for four years, it might as well be.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Well, one thing to consider is that PS1 -> PS2 -> 360 got a good bit of performance out of increasing the power consumption dramatically from generation to generation (like 10W -> 50W -> 200W), and we hit a brick wall in that regard. If you can't increase the power consumption, you have to increase the transistor count instead, and that's way more expensive than a slightly bigger heat sink and another fan.

So are you saying that a console maker can't make a significantly more powerful system than 7-8 years ago for 200W unless it's prohibitively expensive or ridiculously subsidised?

we're not living in the 90s' or even early 00's anymore. normal people now have yearly technology expenses. they need to make their product a better value, not a worse one.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say and how it relates to what I wrote...

 

[ikioi]

Not really.

Using a modern CPU, instead of an "evolution" of a CPU designed in the 90s, alongside a cheap, mid-tier, GPU would be enough.

You do realise Intel's Core2 and i series CPUs are based on the Pentium 3 architecture right?

So even now, there's people rocking pretty high end PCs where their CPU can be directly traced to engineering and architecture from the 90s

Intel developed a new architecture for the P4, dropped it, and when they went back to the drawing board for the core2 series they based it heavily of the Pentium 3 architecture.

 

[Darryl]

So are you saying that a console maker can't make a significantly more powerful system than 7-8 years ago for 200W unless it's prohibitively expensive or ridiculously subsidised?
I honestly don't know what you're trying to say and how it relates to what I wrote...

I interpreted it as "Consoles have released at $299 for awhile now. Why not $399?". Maybe it was your odd structure that confused me because it looked like you were emphasizing the years and the price of the console.

 

[Zombie James]

You do realise Intel's Core2 and i series CPUs are based on the Pentium 3 architecture right?

So even now, there's people rocking pretty high end PCs where their CPU can be directly traced to engineering and architecture from the 90s

Intel developed a new architecture for the P4, dropped it, and when they went back to the drawing board for the core2 series they based it heavily of the Pentium 3 architecture.

You're half right. The original Core and Core 2 processors (Conroe, Penryn, Yorkfield) were based on the Pentium 3, but Intel's been on a schedule of releasing a brand new architecture every two years for a while now. Nahelem was launched in 2008, Sandy Bridge in 2011, and Haswell will launch in 2013.

 

[The Boat]

So are you saying that a console maker can't make a significantly more powerful system than 7-8 years ago for 200W unless it's prohibitively expensive or ridiculously subsidised?

It's important to note that $299 360 didn't have any memory, came with composite cables, a wired controller, no game, it had an embarrassingly high fail-rate and it was noisy.
MS might have launched it at $299/$399 all those years ago, but there were a lot of setbacks in doing so, like the mentioned above and the fact that they lost money a lot of money.

 

[teh_pwn]

You do realise Intel's Core2 and i series CPUs are based on the Pentium 3 architecture right?

So even now, there's people rocking pretty high end PCs where their CPU can be directly traced to engineering and architecture from the 90s

Intel developed a new architecture for the P4, dropped it, and when they went back to the drawing board for the core2 series they based it heavily of the Pentium 3 architecture.

Intel invests billions of R&D to get the performance gains we have today over Pentium 3. Whether or not it is a derivative of P3 doesn't make the analogy apt.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

As a Wii U owner, it'd be awesome if they released something on par with Durango for the same cost. Great for me as a consumer.

But let's not pretend as if the PS3 wasn't $600 and Microsoft doesn't make up their money charging $60/year to play games you've already bought. Costs get passed down to the consumer all the time.

Most of the money that is lost using the razor edge method in the consoles is recovered by licensing cost, something Nintendo didn't stopped doing even if they were winning money for each console.

Also at least XBL Gold gets some good offers, god luck with that in the Nintendo side. (Well , -25% of discount on a dumped GB rom is so nice of Nintendo!)

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Also at least XBL Gold gets some good offers, god luck with that in the Nintendo side. (Well , -25% of discount on a dumped GB rom is so nice of Nintendo!)

Developers can set their own pricepoints and even sale prices on eShop. That's more price control than XBL extends to them.

 

[wsippel]

So are you saying that a console maker can't make a significantly more powerful system than 7-8 years ago for 200W unless it's prohibitively expensive or ridiculously subsidised?

No, they would be significantly more powerful, but a comparable jump would be more expensive. And I don't think Sony or Microsoft will be targeting 200W again to begin with.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Each 10x jump in performance is more expensive than the last.

 

[Glorified G]

It's important to note that $299 360 didn't have any memory, came with composite cables, a wired controller, no game, it had an embarrassingly high fail-rate and it was noisy.
MS might have launched it at $299/$399 all those years ago, but there were a lot of setbacks in doing so, like the mentioned above and the fact that they lost money a lot of money.

The same thing applies to the ps1-ps2. It didn't have any memory, no game, came with a wired controller, etc. Those "setbacks" were there for a reason. The plan was for the consumer to buy accessories that arguably should have been there in the first place. And it worked. So I don't see the model going away anytime soon.

 

[Freezie KO]

Also at least XBL Gold gets some good offers, god luck with that in the Nintendo side. (Well , -25% of discount on a dumped GB rom is so nice of Nintendo!)

Sony: Play online for free.
Nintendo: Play online for free.
Microsoft: Pay us to play online. But here's some discounts you may or may not be interested in.
Relaxed Muscle: Yay! Discounts!

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

No developer is stupid enough to shit on hardware they're actually working on. Pretty clear the dev comments were bullshit.

 

[H_Prestige]

No developer is stupid enough to shit on hardware they're actually working on. Pretty clear the dev comments were bullshit.

Only trust the developers trying to sell their product. That sounds reasonable.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

Only trust the developers trying to sell their product. That sounds reasonable.

Aren't all developers trying to sell their product?

 

[velvet_nitemare]

The PS1 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299, was a successful and profitable venture.

The PS2 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299, was a successful and profitable venture.

The 360 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299/$399, was a successful and profitable venture.

Why are people under the impression that launching a system with a significant technological leap at even $399 can't be a successful and profitable venture. That a new console must either be technologically gimped, prohibitively expensive, or bankruptcy-inducingly subsidised.

Is it the false dichotomy the PS3 and the Wii created this gen? Is it because of whatever creative accounting or poor supplier deals ends up with a loss per unit, Wii U?

And before people bring up "inflation" I don't really thing the CPI applies to such technology.

Good post. It's also why i believe that one (maybe even both)nof Sony and MS will price their next console at $350 (For the tard SKU) and still have a significant power bump.

 

[ikioi]

Intel invests billions of R&D to get the performance gains we have today over Pentium 3. Whether or not it is a derivative of P3 doesn't make the analogy apt.

And IBM don't?

It an apt analogy.

The PowerPC 7xx architecture has evolved incredibly since it first made is appearence in the 90s. No different really from the Pentium 3 and its evolution into the Core and Core2.

Also goes to show that old architecture =/ fail

 

[frankie_baby]

Only trust the developers trying to sell their product. That sounds reasonable.

A developer that didn't make a Wii u version of their game has a vested interest in people not buying a wii u

 

[teh_pwn]

And IBM don't?

It an apt analogy.

I fail to see the difference between the evolution of the IBM PowerPC 7xx range and say Intel and their P3 and Core processors. Architecture ground work had been around for decades and through evolutions in engineering and architecture, as well as redesigns, the processors throughout the decade got a lot more powerful and efficient.

You're asking if Intel's R&D into Pentium 3 through Haswell is comparable to IBM's investment into PowerPC 7xx? Is this a serious question? You know that IBM moved onto 9xx in mid 2000s, and then Apple switched to Intel?

 

[AzaK]

Or they could just make a $350-399 box with modern specs like Sony and MS' next systems, instead of a last gen machine with an expensive tablet controller.

Oh, sorry, was I interrupting your fantasy?

I think you should have read the post I was quoting before typing that up.

Unless you actually agree with that poster that the only way for wii u to satisfy everyone was to be a $1000 PC, and that the wii u is not just a mountain of dumb, simple to correct design mistakes, and that everyone bashing it is just a "dudebro" idiot making clearly unreasonable complaints and demands that nintendo could never have possibly satisfied.

So let's see if I simplified the math correctly here:

Nintendobox with nintendo games > nintendobox with nintendo games + third party games

No, it's

Nintendobox with Nintendo's craziness (screen controller, wii remote, whatever) > nintendobox with nintendo games + third party for a lot of people, it's just be nice to have both. If Nintendo kept the GamePad but made it Durango/Orbis level, what would think? Would you pay the money for that really?

It's all about marketting and securing lots of money. If Nintendo can do that with a touch screen controller, they will. MS think they can do it with "core western games" so they go that route. Sony thought they could do it with exotic tech.

The PS1 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299, was a successful and profitable venture.

The PS2 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299, was a successful and profitable venture.

The 360 was a significant technological leap, launched at $299/$399, was a successful and profitable venture.

Why are people under the impression that launching a system with a significant technological leap at even $399 can't be a successful and profitable venture. That a new console must either be technologically gimped, prohibitively expensive, or bankruptcy-inducingly subsidised.

Is it the false dichotomy the PS3 and the Wii created this gen? Is it because of whatever creative accounting or poor supplier deals ends up with a loss per unit, Wii U?

And before people bring up "inflation" I don't really thing the CPI applies to such technology.

The Wii U is a significant technological leap just not in core tech. You're also forgetting inflation and the shitty yen.

 

[ikioi]

You're asking if Intel's R&D into Pentium 3 through Haswell is comparable to IBM's investment into PowerPC 7xx? Is this a serious question?

I'm not claiming that IBMs investment into R&D on the PowerPC 7xx series is comparable financially to Intel's for their Pentium 3.

Comparing money spent engineering doens't prove if an architecture is good or not. Intel spent serious coin developing on the P4 architecture, how'd that go for them? Oh wait, they dropped it and for future processors when back to 90s architecture to base it off.

Reality is the the PowerPC 7xx series evolved a lot from its inception through to the final models. Comparing a early model 7xx series to late models, honestly is like comparing a Pentium 3 to a Core 2.

 

[H_Prestige]

A developer that didn't make a Wii u version of their game has a vested interest in people not buying a wii u

No, they don't. They have a vested interest in people buying their game, nothing more. Doesn't mean they have a vendetta against any other platform.

The devs in question are super technical and know what the fuck they're talking about. I'd like to see someone actually refute their claims with technical facts. I doubt anyone here is up for that.

 

[shinra-bansho]

It's important to note that $299 360 didn't have any memory, came with composite cables, a wired controller, no game, it had an embarrassingly high fail-rate and it was noisy.
MS might have launched it at $299/$399 all those years ago, but there were a lot of setbacks in doing so, like the mentioned above and the fact that they lost money a lot of money.

Expensive accessories aren't a new thing this gen. Nor is loss-leading. Nor are hardware faults (see DRE) - and presumably as hardware becomes more complex there's more room for fault.

No, they would be significantly more powerful, but a comparable jump would be more expensive. And I don't think Sony or Microsoft will be targeting 200W again to begin with.

Even setting aside "comparable" a significant jump - a visible jump is necessary.

New consoles will be competing with the Wii U at ~$300, and the PS3 and 360 at ~$200. A ~$400 console needs to provide a value proposition.

The Wii U is a significant technological leap just not in core tech. You're also forgetting inflation and the shitty yen.

Elaborate on this significant technological leap - are you referring to the streaming tech...?

I don't see how I forgot inflation when I specifically mentioned it. Elaborate on how inflationary pressures make a powerful affordable console unfeasible. Does the price of the 360 rise every year? Does Apple adjust the iPhone by the CPI?

You mean the strong yen, or rather the weak dollar. $400 USD is still above 30,000 yen.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Sony: Play online for free.
Nintendo: Play online for free.
Microsoft: Pay us to play online. But here's some discounts you may or may not be interested in.
Relaxed Muscle: Yay! Discounts!

I don't think XBL is ideal, but much better than overpriced games in Nintendo online stores.

"Hey pay more than the physical copy of our game although it should be more cheaper! and here's our 5€-10€ rom dumps!"

 

[frankie_baby]

No, they don't. They have a vested interest in people buying their game, nothing more. Doesn't mean they have a vendetta against any other platform.

The devs in question are super technical and know what the fuck they're talking about. I'd like to see someone actually refute their claims with technical facts. I doubt anyone here is up for that.

Never said they had a vendetta but if someone buys a Wii u they may be then focused on their new console soless llikely to buy games for their old one or even sell their old console and thus not be able to buy games for it, so in order to sell as many copies of metro as they can yes they do have a vested interest in people not buying wii u

 

[wsippel]

You're asking if Intel's R&D into Pentium 3 through Haswell is comparable to IBM's investment into PowerPC 7xx? Is this a serious question? You know that IBM moved onto 9xx in mid 2000s, and then Apple switched to Intel?

Espresso is some weird hybrid between the 750CL and the most modern IBM core, the A2 - and whatever else IBM bolted on to that thing. What it looks like from a developer standpoint is one thing, the actual silicon is a completely different issue.

 

[frankie_baby]

Espresso is some weird hybrid between the 750CL and the most modern IBM core, the A2 - and whatever else IBM bolted on to that thing. What it looks like from a developer standpoint is one thing, the actual silicon is a completely different issue.

Haven't kept up with the technical threads lately, have we had info suggesting the A2 stuff?

 

[wsippel]

Haven't kept up with the technical threads lately, have we had info suggesting the A2 stuff?

L2 eDRAM is A2 stuff. It's the only other IBM core that uses it.

 

[frankie_baby]

L2 eDRAM is A2 stuff. It's the only other IBM core that uses it.

How different (better?) Really is L2 edram Than L2 cache normally is in a chip?