Support NeoGAF

[specialguy]

You nailed it. Developers and Publishers are very stupid and Nintendo really has little to nothing to do with it.

People are going to keep up with this attitude until Nintendo is dead and buried.

The PS3 had pretty horrible 3rd party and overall software sales at it's launch. What did 3rd parties do? They just kept pushing forward and hoping for sales to improve, and hey they did. When the same happens on Wii U, it's suddenly OH SHIT CANCEL ALL THE GAMES! 3rd parties need to take some form of responsibility for sales of their games on Nintendo platforms.

It still gets back to the Wii U not being powerful enough imo. The 3rd parties are just going to make Durango/Orbis/PC games (that they will target with the same assets) and Wii U is odd man out.

 

[Apophis2036]

Anyway, at most cross platform in-house porting should cost at most an extra 4 million, these are old figures (2/3 years old) that I remember though, costs might have decreased since. Ubisoft claims their budget for Wii U ports is 1.3 Million.

If multiplatform ports really are only around $1.5 million then Nintendo were stupid not to fund the likes of Tomb Raider, Crysis 3, MGRR, Bioshock Infinite and GTA V to pad out their 2013 release schedules.

I always expected WiiU to get Watch_Dogs, Splinter Cell Blacklist and the next AC because of Nintendo's relationship with Ubisoft.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The poster makes some fairly valid points and rather then address any of them you just dismiss him with one sentence.

You nailed it. Nintendo is very stupid and 3rd parties have little to nothing to do with how their games sell on Nintendo platforms....


No one is saying Nintendo is 100% not to blame here. What people are saying is that if 3rd parties pulled the shit they do on Nintendo platforms on say a Sony or MS one, they would get similar results and that they need to take some responsibility for their choices.

The PS3 had pretty horrible 3rd party and overall software sales at it's launch. What did 3rd parties do? They just kept pushing forward and hoping for sales to improve, and hey they did. When the same happens on Wii U, it's suddenly OH SHIT CANCEL ALL THE GAMES! 3rd parties need to take some form of responsibility for sales of their games on Nintendo platforms.

They pull the same shit they have since the GC, release ports 6 months or more later, for full price when other versions are cheaper, some times missing features and wonder why they don't sell as well.

It's almost like there's this concept, that if we release it, in what ever state they have to buy it. If I go to the store and my money can be spent on either game X, that the developer isn't giving me the pre-order DLC on, and won't even give me a time frame, or a definitive answer on if it's coming at all, or game Y that is being treated the same as the other platforms, I'm probably picking game Y.

This isn't 20 - 30 years ago, where your choices of new releases were much more narrow. In this day and age there are SO MANY games released, on all platforms, that it is insanely easy to just say no to a half assed port. There is so much competition for your gaming dollar on ALL of the platforms, that to release anything that is considered half assed, or lacking from the other versions is begging for poor sales.

How stupid is it, to take a game like Rayman, which the previous version didn't see too hot of sales on any platform. Take it from releasing to a game starved launch audience, where even games like Red Steel can sell a million copies, and move it down to the busiest and most competitive period for game launches.

When Rayman on Wii U fails to meet sales goals, how is that Nintendo's fault?

If third party companies are backing away from a console manufacturer, it is 100% the responsibility of the console manufacturer. I mean, if we're talking about a sole developer, then hey support comes and goes...but when you have so many companies treating your product like its radioactive, then the responsibility really is solely and entirely Nintendo's. There is no vast, industry wide conspiracy against them. Nintendo simply does not care about full third party support for their home consoles and perhaps never will. If they did, they would do whatever it took to win them back. Huge discounts on royalty fees, free promotions etc etc. If they indeed have a war chest in the tens of billions, then it would be money well spent.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

¿Sorry? Not only the WiiU has sold more systems during the same period, but it's the first system of it's generation (in terms of third party support, it's not the same to ignore a 5-10 million userbase when the competition has 15-20 million of unit sold than doing it when the competition has yet to release its systems) and has more titles and strong franchises planned on it before the competition even releases their systems than the PSVita will have during its entire lifespan.

Let's be serious. WiiU hasn't been the hit everyone was expecting, but it's not even close to be at the same level of Vita.

What I meant was neither system is doomed. Sorry I wasn't clear

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

Well said, man. It pisses me off to think that the players get blamed for stupid decisions on their part...especially the Mass Effect 3 situation. If they had no intentions of supporting the game properly, then they shouldn't have even bothered. Yet, even players say it's the Wii U owner's fault for not buying the game. That's just flat out wrong. Why should a Wii U owner buy the Wii U version of Mass Effect 3? If EA didn't care about the game, then it's not on the players to do so.

Still, good post.

I feel like if I don't buy third party games for my Wii U, publishers will stop putting games out for it. Like, I feel obligated to buy Need For Speed and I'm not even that interested in it... If only it had local multi player...

 

[Subhero]

.

 

[phosphor112]

.

You LIAR!

 

[prag16]

That would either mean that Nintendo sold far less first-party software than the strength of their portfolio suggests; or Sony and Microsoft sold far more first-party software than given credit.

And yes, the lack of sales is in part third parties fault - as they didn't put their titles on the system - which leads us to why they didn't, because for a lot of their titles they couldn't.
What global tie ratios? We only have software shipment information for Sony and Nintendo.
I meant, by that comment, that there's a 160M installed base for the other two systems. Nintendo releasing a system similar in capabilities now should not expect parity of support.

I assume you're familiar with the concept of a self fulfilling prophecy. Even though based on a lot of your comments, you could've fooled me...

 

[Subhero]

You LIAR!

Don't even know what the association could be
Just wondered what has become of this thread while it had started out so insightful
Roger, over & out.

 

[phosphor112]

Don't even know what the association could be
Just wondered what has become of this thread while it had started out so insightful
Roger, over & out.

Warriors...

 

[EDarkness]

If third party companies are backing away from a console manufacturer, it is 100% the responsibility of the console manufacturer. I mean, if we're talking about a sole developer, then hey support comes and goes...but when you have so many companies treating your product like its radioactive, then the responsibility really is solely and entirely Nintendo's. There is no vast, industry wide conspiracy against them. Nintendo simply does not care about full third party support for their home consoles and perhaps never will. If they did, they would do whatever it took to win them back. Huge discounts on royalty fees, free promotions etc etc. If they indeed have a war chest in the tens of billions, then it would be money well spent.

No offense, but no way. It's a publisher's job to make good products. If EA wants me to buy their games, then they need to do a good job of it. It's entirely their responsibility. So you're saying that we as consumers should simply give them money out of the goodness of our hearts? That's not how it works.

One thing that troubles me about all of this is that people are implying that it's Nintendo that made these bad ports and we're simply supposed to give these third parties money for them because they're doing us a favor by making them in the first place. It doesn't matter what the hardware is like, third party publishers have a responsibility to their consumers to make good products. Shoveling shit on the consumers, then blaming them for not buying is just not right and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone.

If these third parties don't want to do a good job, then they shouldn't even bother. Blaming us for their failings is just flat out not cool. The sad thing is I was super hyped to pick up Mass Effect on the Wii U as I'm a huge fan of the series (playing it now as a matter of fact), but after the train wreck they released for the Wii U, I didn't pick it up. That's not Nintendo's fault.

 

[Log4Girlz]

No offense, but no way. It's a publisher's job to make good products.

They are, just not for Wii U. There are not two parties involved, its not Nintendo vs. third parties..."third parties" means we are talking about quite a few publishers ignoring the console. It is entirely Nintendo's responsibility to woo them to their system. Throwing a system out there does not guarantee support from anyone.

 

[Donnie]

New Wii U Devkit V3

http://www.vgleaks.com/wii-u-devkit-cat-dev-v3/

The specs for this devkit are almost the same that you can find in V1-V2 models, there is a slight difference in the clockspeeds and performance.

Interesting, I wonder if that means a tweak to clock speeds in retail units will be coming in the planned update or if the dev kit has simply been running slower than the retail system.

 

[Raist]

3DS rebounded almost 100% because of the price drop and 1st party releases; both are almost 100% guaranteed to happen with the Wii U as well.

WiiU is too much of a departure from the Wii philosophy for that to be a given. Not saying it won't happen, but the two situations are completely different.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

Interesting, I wonder if that means a tweak to clock speeds in retail units will be coming in the planned update or if the dev kit has simply been running slower than the retail system.

Depends. Is the V3 dev kit here the most up-to-date? I'm sure I read mention of a "V5" earlier in the year - or was that a new SDK, rather than a dev kit revision?

 

[DrWong]

I don't know what sales stuff are doing here !? Seriously, there're already plenty of those sales threads...

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

Interesting, I wonder if that means a tweak to clock speeds in retail units will be coming in the planned update or if the dev kit has simply been running slower than the retail system.

Anything more than a 5% clock increase would've made for more than 'slightly' adjusted clockspeeds, IMO. I wish we could ask those guys directly for more info. It'd kind of be a disaster IMO if a devkit didn't have identical hardware 6 months after the console launch. This can't be the latest devkit.

3DS rebounded almost 100% because of the price drop and 1st party releases; both are almost 100% guaranteed to happen with the Wii U as well.

I don't think that is anywhere near correct, and I also don't think that we should be talking about that in here

 

[wsippel]

Interesting, I wonder if that means a tweak to clock speeds in retail units will be coming in the planned update or if the dev kit has simply been running slower than the retail system.

Even the V3 kits are really old by now. Final silicon supposedly didn't become available until close to launch, so V4.2 or V5 or something.

We know that initial kits were clocked at 1GH/ 400MHz, and we know the clocks were bumped pretty early on, so V3 might have been the first revision running at 1.25/550.

 

[suavelicious]

New Wii U Devkit V3

http://www.vgleaks.com/wii-u-devkit-cat-dev-v3/

The devkit v3 might not be that new: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=37650363&postcount=3274

I guess only the pictures are new

 

[EDarkness]

They are, just not for Wii U. There are not two parties involved, its not Nintendo vs. third parties..."third parties" means we are talking about quite a few publishers ignoring the console. It is entirely Nintendo's responsibility to woo them to their system. Throwing a system out there does not guarantee support from anyone.

If they aren't making good games for the Wii U, then it's not our responsibility to buy them. If they want our money, then they how know to get it. My view is simple, they have no damn reason to bitch when their games don't sell due to half-assed effort. That's all on them. You seem to be implying that it's Nintendo's fault these games are bad.

Whether or not they make games or not is part of Nintendo's job. Whether or not they make a "good" game is not. To be honest, I'd rather have no support than crappily supported ports.

Anyway, I'm stepping out of this thread so that it can get back on track. Sorry guys.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

If third party companies are backing away from a console manufacturer, it is 100% the responsibility of the console manufacturer. I mean, if we're talking about a sole developer, then hey support comes and goes...but when you have so many companies treating your product like its radioactive, then the responsibility really is solely and entirely Nintendo's. There is no vast, industry wide conspiracy against them. Nintendo simply does not care about full third party support for their home consoles and perhaps never will. If they did, they would do whatever it took to win them back. Huge discounts on royalty fees, free promotions etc etc. If they indeed have a war chest in the tens of billions, then it would be money well spent.

No one said there's a conspiracy against them, but it's blatantly obvious that 3rd parties aren't learning from past mistakes.

How is it Nintendo's fault that Activision chose not to support CoD Blops2 with any DLC? Other games on the platform have DLC. How is it Nintendo's fault when EA decides to release Mass Effect 3 at full price, when it's 20 - 30 bucks every where else? Haven't we heard from Devs that Nintendo has the lowest licensing fees out there with the Wii U? We've seen them promoting 3rd party software in the eShop, and allowing devs to od sales when ever they want. We know that patches are free, compared to MS where it's 1st patch free and then the next one is 10k. You act as if they've done nothing when in fact we have reports of the opposite.

Again explain how a 3rd party releasing a half assed port 6 months late is Nintendo's fault? I'd love to hear how they snuck into the 3rd parties office, took control of their decision making people and purposely made them decide to make a half assed product.

How is it Nintendo's job to ensure that the product a 3rd party makes is actually quality and worth selling?

You can lead a horse to water but no amount of throwing money at it is going to make it drink.

AGAIN, I'm not saying they aren't some what responsible but to put 100% of the blame on them, is bullshit.

 

[Log4Girlz]

If they aren't making good games for the Wii U, then it's not our responsibility to buy them. If they want our money, then they how know to get it. My view is simple, they have no damn reason to bitch when their games don't sell due to half-assed effort. That's all on them. You seem to be implying that it's Nintendo's fault these games are bad.

Whether or not they make games or not is part of Nintendo's job. Whether or not they make a "good" game is not. To be honest, I'd rather have no support than crappily supported ports.

Anyway, I'm stepping out of this thread so that it can get back on track. Sorry guys.

Nintendo is responsible for gaining support from third party developers. They should do whatever it takes to convince them to put in effort into their ports, to SELL their system to developers, not just to customers. They have made a laughable effort apparently and so they get laughable ports. This is entirely Nintendo's doing.

Edit: And let me emphasize again that the issue of poor porting and lackluster support is with MANY COMPANIES. You cannot rationalize that all these companies must be incompetent. The fault is with Nintendo alone.

To Shin Johnpv. Nintendo has created a system. Games do not fall from the sky or grow on trees. If Nintendo wants content, they need to insure they are getting content. Plain and simple.

 

[ElectricKaibutsu]

This thread was the reason I joined GAF. Smart people breaking down the secrets in the Wii U was irresistibly interesting. I stayed up late almost every night just trying to keep up with all the info.

But this thread is dead, along with my dreams of special sauce.

I bid you all, adieu.

 

[prag16]

No one said there's a conspiracy against them, but it's blatantly obvious that 3rd parties aren't learning from past mistakes.

How is it Nintendo's fault that Activision chose not to support CoD Blops2 with any DLC? Other games on the platform have DLC. How is it Nintendo's fault when EA decides to release Mass Effect 3 at full price, when it's 20 - 30 bucks every where else? Haven't we heard from Devs that Nintendo has the lowest licensing fees out there with the Wii U? We've seen them promoting 3rd party software in the eShop, and allowing devs to od sales when ever they want. We know that patches are free, compared to MS where it's 1st patch free and then the next one is 10k. You act as if they've done nothing when in fact we have reports of the opposite.

Again explain how a 3rd party releasing a half assed port 6 months late is Nintendo's fault? I'd love to hear how they snuck into the 3rd parties office, took control of their decision making people and purposely made them decide to make a half assed product.

How is it Nintendo's job to ensure that the product a 3rd party makes is actually quality and worth selling?

You can lead a horse to water but no amount of throwing money at it is going to make it drink.

AGAIN, I'm not saying they aren't some what responsible but to put 100% of the blame on them, is bullshit.

This. Let's look at the examples of multiplat "failures":

CoD:BO2: Showed up 5 days late with no Nuketown, and no further DLC; patches way slower than on other platforms.
AC3: Showed up three weeks late.
Batman: Showed up a year late at full price with game of the year versions for half the price on other systems.
ME3: Showed up over 8 months late at full price withe other versions much cheaper, and Trilogy on other platforms for same price; no DLC, no support.
Darksiders 2: Showed up late.
Madden/FIFA: Showed up late missing features.

Not a single damn game has been released on a level playing field. Oh yeah, except Sonic racing. Which sold almost as much as the PS3/360 versions apparently with a MUCH smaller installed base, thought I don't have numbers.


AGAIN, SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY. Some if it's on Nintendo, but not all of it; not the majority. With the exception of MAYBE Ubisoft, these third parties are a bunch of ass clowns with the way they handled the Wii (and now the Wii U).

 

[AkiraGr]

Guys are Wii still "talking" about the GPU or the thread derailed to "what the Wii U done wrong with 3rd parties"? Is there an another thread about this kind of conversation, I want to participate but the off topic don't help.

I had a debate yesterday with my pals talking about the power of the "next generation" as to where the GPU of the Wii U stands against the Playstation 4. Because they are regular stalkers here on gaf the debate soon took fire. I was trying to be calm and explain about the architecture of the systems are very different of how the optimise the graphic process and the difference between a close system architecture that is the Wii U than a beefed up memory(GDDR5) single APU with middle tier AMD parts that is Playstation 4. Both systems have pros and cons. The real problem is that we have not seen this power being utilised, Playstation 4 for obvious reasons(the machine is not even out yet for god sake) and the Wii U for rushed development.

After the PR talk that the Playstation 4 and Nextbox would 10X more powerfull that Ps3-Xbox360 console wars took a new turn for the worst, the majority of the post I read on GAF STILL insists that the Wii U is on par with Xbox360 and Ps3 with any evidence BUT the "next gen gaf" as I call them take for granted that the Ps4 and Nextbox even with concrete evidence of the low specs of the Jaguar CPUxAMD custom GPU in a single APU is nothing to brag about.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/25/playstation-4-processor/

here is the final quote for those that a bored reading all of the article.

Granted, there's a lot of guesswork going on here. But hopefully some of the items we've looked at from Sony's spec sheet will now have a bit more context. Not only in terms of what words like APU and "unified memory" mean, but also with respect to the bigger picture of what the PS4 is designed to achieve.

We could be wrong, but it looks to us like Sony has made a serious investment in a new type of processor that finds a better balance between performance and power consumption. It could deliver the 1080p visuals of a current mid-range gaming PC but in a form factor more akin to a small and quiet HTPC. We just hope that's as clever as it sounds -- and that Sony will find a way to keep the price below that of the console's predecessor.

Then lets go to the verdict of the Wii U from the same site

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/19/nintendo-wii-u-teardown/

Again the tech press do not know what to say about the machine but to explain PC parts that are present on the motherboard AFTER a dissect. No serious information about the architecture they go as far as GUESS the GPU is an R700.

My point is after posting this two articles about the blind faith some guys put on PR talk on specs of a machine that wait to pass judgement according to facts. Same thing happen with the Ps3 and Xbox 360. Some people still believe that the Ps3 is stronger in the graphical department than Xbox 360.

Some facts sheets about IBM CPU that is on the Wii U that now goes

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/photo/34681.wss

Sorry if they were post again but as far I search the site did not find any of the above.

Iwata asks about the architecture of the Wii U.

http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wiiu/console/0/0

Taketa is the brain behind the GameCube also he is an engineer on Nintendo from the NES days hired by Gumpei Yokoi.

As far as the other topic that are discussed in this thread I would to comment but on the specific topic about sales and marketshare or 3rd parties support.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I had a debate yesterday with my pals talking about the power of the "next generation" as to where the GPU of the Wii U stands against the Playstation 4. Because they are regular stalkers here on gaf the debate soon took fire. I was trying to be calm and explain about the architecture of the systems are very different of how the optimise the graphic process and the difference between a close system architecture that is the Wii U than a beefed up memory(GDDR5) single APU with middle tier AMD parts that is Playstation 4. Both systems have pros and cons. The real problem is that we have not seen this power being utilised, Playstation 4 for obvious reasons(the machine is not even out yet for god sake) and the Wii U for rushed development.

After the PR talk that the Playstation 4 and Nextbox would 10X more powerfull that Ps3-Xbox360 console wars took a new turn for the worst, the majority of the post I read on GAF STILL insists that the Wii U is on par with Xbox360 and Ps3 with any evidence BUT the "next gen gaf" as I call them take for granted that the Ps4 and Nextbox even with concrete evidence of the low specs of the Jaguar CPUxAMD custom GPU in a single APU is nothing to brag about.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/25/playstation-4-processor/

here is the final quote for those that a bored reading all of the article.

In your opinion, how much more powerful can the Wii U be that the previous generation when only drawing 45 watts?

 

[megabytecr]

I think the view on only 3rd Party's at fault and only Nintendo is at fault are both far from the truth.

3rd Party dev realeses a bad port and charges more than the other versions -> no one buys that version -> pub/dev analyze sales -> Nintendo platform is not good for us -> other pubs/devs may come to this data -> decides also not to support the Console.

Going by the cost of the AC3 port to Wii U (close to $1 million) and that they had not yet received the Nov 2012 dev kits, I can infer that the Wii U is really not that difficult to develop for. If devs get more involved with the system porting could be easier. If PS4 and Nextbox are similar architectures than Wii U that can also help out at least the first 2-3 years.

If Pubs/Devs are releasing a game late, that game must be running insanely good, have other features that cater to the console's strengths and not be FULL PRICE. If the game has none of the above then PLEASE DON'T BOTHER as there are tons of options where to spend that money, more when you have multiple systems.

But the Biggest concern and opportunity for Wii U are the current state of the industry and the rising Dev costs.

Concern: if 2 years from now PS4Durango games are not that easy to port to the Wii U 3rd partys will go with those 2 only
Opportunity: if things start to get ugly devs will make games for every Console to get most out of every game.

 

[wsippel]

In your opinion, how much more powerful can the Wii U be that the previous generation when only drawing 45 watts?

On paper or in real life? PS3 and 360 aren't exactly very efficient designs and tend to waste a lot of power and cycles doing absolutely nothing.

 

[Log4Girlz]

On paper or in real life? PS3 and 360 aren't exactly very efficient designs and tend to waste a lot of power and cycles doing absolutely nothing.

Realistically. 2x, 5x, 10x etc. Anyone can throw in their opinion on this if they have one.

 

[Apophis2036]

WiiU - 2x.
720 - 6x.
PS4 - 8x.

 

[AOC83]

WiiU - 2x.
720 - 6x.
PS4 - 8x.

If the WiiU is 2 times as powerful as PS360 why are the graphics worse then?

 

[wsippel]

Realistically. 2x, 5x, 10x etc. Anyone can through in their opinion on this if they have one.

Impossible to tell, depends heavily on the workload. The systems are very different, and have different strengths and weaknesses. And yes, there are certain areas where the Wii U is weaker than PS3 and/ or 360. But then again, the same is almost certainly true for PS4 as well.

If the WiiU is 2 times as powerful as PS360 why are the graphics worse then?

Because most developers didn't try harder.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

If the WiiU is 2 times as powerful as PS360 why are the graphics worse then?

Need for Speed Most Wanted.

Have a nice day.

(yes, I know he's a contrived troll)

 

[Earendil]

Good post and I agree with most of what you say, I just can't see third parties bothering with WiiU ports beyond Just Dance and yearly sports games. When CoD only sells 150k and AC3 only sells 100k on a system with an install base of 2.5 million then it's a warning sign for publishers.

I suppose it all comes back to a question I have asked a few times but has never been answered, how much does a port to WiiU actually cost.

I know this isn't the best way to look at it, but if AC3 sold 100k on an install base of 2.5 million, and it sold 4m on an install base of 75 million, the percentages are fairly close (4% vs 5.3%).

Arguably, it should have sold better because it was launch software. But it was released late and games like this are typically front loaded, so a lot of people who would have purchased it likely wouldn't have wanted to wait the extra couple weeks to play it.

 

[Van Owen]

Because most developers didn't try harder.

That's pretty disrespectful to their efforts.

 

[AOC83]

Need for Speed Most Wanted.

Oh i somehow must have missed the release and the graphic comparisons, can you please offer me a link?

 

[Mithos]

We know that initial kits were clocked at 1GH/ 400MHz, and we know the clocks were bumped pretty early on, so V3 might have been the first revision running at 1.25/550.

I just have to ask, are ANY games that released for Wii U not optimized/using the higher frequencies?

 

[AOC83]

Because most developers didn't try harder.

If the WiiU would be twice as powerful they wouldn´t need to try harder.

 

[sfried]

This thread was the reason I joined GAF. Smart people breaking down the secrets in the Wii U was irresistibly interesting. I stayed up late almost every night just trying to keep up with all the info.

But this thread is dead, along with my dreams of special sauce.

I bid you all, adieu.

Um yeah, what happened to this? Now we're discussion sales number all of a sudden and not ALU numbers.

If the WiiU would be twice as powerful they wouldn´t need to try harder.

This is generally a wrong assumption. My guess is the eccentric architecture is making things harder for devs because they can't simply copypasta code and expect similar performance off the bat.

 

[USC-fan]

Wiiu 1.5x
X720 9x
Ps4 11x

Real life...

 

[Log4Girlz]

Impossible to tell, depends heavily on the workload. The systems are very different, and have different strengths and weaknesses. And yes, there are certain areas where the Wii U is weaker than PS3 and/ or 360. But then again, the same is almost certainly true for PS4 as well.

.

You don't have to be super specific. Think of it this way, let's imagine for a moment cross-gen game X, which will also appear on the Xbox 360. In your opinion, what improvements should be theoretically possible? Let us assume for comparison's sake that its counterpart is running at 720 p.

Can it run the same title at 1080 p?

Can it run the same title with better textures, lighting and 1080 p?

Can it run the same title with better textures, lighting, 1080 and 60 fps?

Can it run the same title the same as above but also running a completely different, independent fully 3D gameplay session on the gamepad?

Each progression, though not specific, would imply a certain level of performance improvement.

Doubling resolution implies a near doubling of graphical processing load. As does merely doubling frame rate. Doing both implies a rough quadrupling.

These questions are rough and won't answer exactly how much more capable the Wii U is graphically from last gen, but it would give a rough estimate.

 

[Apophis2036]

If the WiiU is 2 times as powerful as PS360 why are the graphics worse then?

Ports.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Ports.

Why is Pikmin 3 so ugly?

 

[Apophis2036]

Why is Pikmin 3 so ugly?

Originally a Wii game.

 

[Meelow]

Why is Pikmin 3 so ugly?

Those screenshots looked bad.

But I look at the video and reassure myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX4JyftL9VY

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

I had a debate yesterday with my pals talking about the power of the "next generation" as to where the GPU of the Wii U stands against the Playstation 4. Because they are regular stalkers here on gaf the debate soon took fire. I was trying to be calm and explain about the architecture of the systems are very different of how the optimise the graphic process and the difference between a close system architecture that is the Wii U than a beefed up memory(GDDR5) single APU with middle tier AMD parts that is Playstation 4. Both systems have pros and cons. The real problem is that we have not seen this power being utilised, Playstation 4 for obvious reasons(the machine is not even out yet for god sake) and the Wii U for rushed development.

After the PR talk that the Playstation 4 and Nextbox would 10X more powerfull that Ps3-Xbox360 console wars took a new turn for the worst, the majority of the post I read on GAF STILL insists that the Wii U is on par with Xbox360 and Ps3 with any evidence BUT the "next gen gaf" as I call them take for granted that the Ps4 and Nextbox even with concrete evidence of the low specs of the Jaguar CPUxAMD custom GPU in a single APU is nothing to brag about.

I understand where you're coming from, but there are a few things you're downplaying in regards to PS4. An APU with a high amount of high speed RAM is very, very, very flexible, efficient, and futuristic. In addition, in raw performance it's a pretty huge upgrade, in addition to a couple PC generations of architectural improvements and work performed per op. Mid-tier PC components that are already huge advances from what we see this gen, in a closed environment.

 

[ColdBlooder]

If the WiiU would be twice as powerful they wouldn´t need to try harder.

If the architecture is vastly different, then yes, they have to try harder on 2x more powerful hardware.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Have any sophisticated 3D games been released or announced that support native 1080 p rendering?

 

[Osiris]

Wii U is a bit more powerful than the 360 & PS3, but it's not going to compete power wise with the next gen machines. That's just fantasyland fiction and serious wishful thinking.

35w vs 130-150w machines, no amount of efficiency is going to get over that deficit, it's simple physics just for starters.

The Wii U is well engineered for it's brief, provide an entry to the HD era on a low power budget, but it's not going to match what we see on the PS4 & 720, no-one with any sense expects it to.

 

[Blades64]

Why is Pikmin 3 so ugly?

It was a Wii game.