gundamkyoukai
Member
But then Nintendo would have not gotten in such a small case and low TDP.
Which seem to matter allot to them .
-
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.
Metro Last Light dev: 'Wii U has horrible, slow CPU' [Up: DICE dev comments]
- Thread starter PrivateRyan
- Start date
But then Nintendo would have not gotten in such a small case and low TDP.
Which seem to matter allot to them .
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Not with 4x the RAM and a "Blu Ray" drive, no.
2010 it could have easily released at this price though.
H_Prestige
Banned
Until proven otherwise, no it cannot.
I think the poster above was saying that nintendo should have released a HD machine in 2006 if it wanted to keep third parties on board. Not literally the Wii U spec for spec. I'd imagine such a machine would look a lot like the 360 core, which launched at 299.
Except it's different, the Wii U will have at least 10 million install base when the PS4/720 releases and the Wii U is much closer to PS4/720's power then the Wii was with the PS3/360. And we know the Wii U is getting much more indie support then the Wii was and Nintendo grew much bigger in Japan then when they entered last gen with the Wii and is releasing Mario, Monster Hunter, and DQX day 1 which will help the Wii U.
But that's my opinion.
There was no point for introducing a hd nintendo console in 2006. Until end of 2009 wii was selling great, releasing another console in 3 years period could have destroyed nintendo because they would be dividing own market share. And what games should be released then? If it supports the wii then the power or the "hd" console would not be used and in another situation a lot of people would feel abandoned. I never even understood the idea of 2 consoles...
No. It seems abundantly clear at this point that it's possible to imagine application scenarios where Wii U won't keep up with PS3 or 360. And the other way around.
Yes.
Wait a sec.. A HD console that is not as powerful as ps3 or 360 but apparantly close and a tablet controler pre-ipad made from a company not willing to make losses on hardware... Will cost the same as 360 circa 2005? Really?
We saw what would happen in that case... Its called gamecube
Randolph Freelander
Member
There seems to have been a lot of money and trust (creative and otherwise) issues between those folks. The reality is that the relationship between employers and employees is not always without contentiousness and the butting of heads. But the other reality is that far more often, these entities figure out how to come together and make things work. At the end of the day, they are people that hopefully are doing what they love (and they don't have to necessarily love it all the time) while working on an advanced gaming platform (and that is what the Wii U is, regardless of its power stature). If they ever wonder, tell them to talk to me about writing line-of-business applications inside a bank. That's where the true drudgery lies.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Where are you getting the idea that the WiiU will be closer to Orbis/720 than the Wii was to PS3 / 360?
Are you certain Wii U will sell 10 million in a year?
Because it's pretty obvious, the PS3/360 was at least 20x more powerful then the Wii, we know the PS4/720 won't be 20x more powerful then the Wii U.
Also if Sony and Microsoft manged that the price would be too much, especially if Microsoft wants the Xbox to be the media box in the house and come with Kinect 2.
10 million is just my bull numbers, if it's it not 10 million then it should be close to it.
Yes, I agree and that's why I can't think of a leap as big as from PS2 to PS3 between the PS3 and its successor.
If you're referring to the SquareEnix tech demo, I don't remember another one, the leap seems pretty small compared to "last gen" and it's not pretty likely that anything else like an enemy AI ran in the background.
Just for clarification: I just don't think that those consoles will be much more powerful if they really aim for a price around $300 to $400 (they should be, as you already stated). I also assume that especially Sony won't sell at a loss and tries to subsidise it with software sales again.
1. Yes, it can. The launch games besides batman are all around the x360/ps3 level, the only problems i have seen are in sonic but those are some weird bugs and the patch should be released soon(nobody complained about performance). And tekken runs at a lower resolution but that it as far as i know. Those framrate issues in other games like ac3,ds2 are also present in other console versions.
2. Y, that will most likely be fixed with updates
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
That's good reasoning.
We're experts
Well arent they planning 5 million until end of march?
If your being sarcastic I'm sorry I didn't do a detailed comment but that's what I think and am seeing with how things are going now.
I'm out of this thread.
That's some undeniable scientific proof right there.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
No I was serious. Those were good points
And people got upset when I called this thing the Krillin of the next generation consoles.
Nintendo are jokers. They had all the momentum behind them with the Wii, and they were getting a years head start over the competition. They could have easily provided a more powerful console and still have been successful. No one was asking them to bankrupt themselves and pull a PS3, but something substantial over what we have currently wouldn't have been impossible for them. They're just locking out third party support again with this poorly thought out approach. I don't believe this nonsense of "Nintendo have always focused more on gameplay than horsepower" either. Yeah, with the Wii maybe. N64 and Gamecube were nothing to scoff at, and neither was the DS. I don't see how this bullshit rhetoric from one console generation has all of a sudden become the expected norm with them.
Nintendo are jokers. They had all the momentum behind them with the Wii, and they were getting a years head start over the competition. They could have easily provided a more powerful console and still have been successful. No one was asking them to bankrupt themselves and pull a PS3, but something substantial over what we have currently wouldn't have been impossible for them. They're just locking out third party support again with this poorly thought out approach. I don't believe this nonsense of "Nintendo have always focused more on gameplay than horsepower" either. Yeah, with the Wii maybe. N64 and Gamecube were nothing to scoff at, and neither was the DS. I don't see how this bullshit rhetoric from one console generation has all of a sudden become the expected norm with them.
H_Prestige
Banned
The GC had really small capacity discs and a strange controller. The ps2 was also just too dominant and this was before multiplatform development really took off. Not really the same situation.
If MS was able to take advantage of ps3's launch failure this gen and establish the Xbox as the console to develop games on, then Nintendo would have had a shot as well if it released a 360 type of machine. Would it have sold insane and made as much money like the Wii did? No. But long term, do those few years of money printing really matter if Nintendo had to sacrifice the core gamer and third parties, and the casual consumers either aren't interested anymore or have moved onto other things?
Oh, sorry. I can't tell anymore on GAF lol.
DS was nothing to scoff at? Compared to the "sexyness" of PSP?
Xbox and ps2 shared a ton of multiplats and gc was always excluded
Compared to what came before it which was the GBA. It was a significant enough leap for a handheld and also provided new ways for gameplay.
not_so_special
Banned
keep thinking that son
this is the new mantra for nintendo fans? hoping that the next xbox or ps3 wont be powerfull?
Oh sweet:
Microsoft: "We're no longer just competing with console companies"
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=500833
Microsoft: "We're no longer just competing with console companies"
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=500833
Yeah I know, it's crazy to think that some random gaf posters actually might know a thing or two about system architectures unlike those mythical 1 in a billion engineers at some company.
Here's a tidbit : there are people on Gaf who work/ed on the CERN-project. *GASP*
edit : lol j/k there are no engineers on gaf, we all work in retail.
Nintendo's problem is simply that are sitting between two stools. Really, it's like they escaped from their base to avoid enemy, then they found a new cool base, but now that it's burning, they hesitate between staying there or returning to fight the enemy where they came from.
It was clear since the beginning. WiiU doesn't offer enough next gen vibe to make someone, who's not a regular Nintendo buyer, and who has been playing mainly on PC/PS3/360, to invest 350 euros in something that is perceived as the same as they have already with a small twist.
It was clear since the beginning. WiiU doesn't offer enough next gen vibe to make someone, who's not a regular Nintendo buyer, and who has been playing mainly on PC/PS3/360, to invest 350 euros in something that is perceived as the same as they have already with a small twist.
For those asking about Nintendo "cheaping out", do you remember this?
http://www.1up.com/news/epic-games-cost-microsoft-billion
Microsoft doubled the RAM in their console in 2005 and that cost them a billion (I assume in projected LTD installed base)
I guess to avoid to make a costly console is one key to not sink your revenue.
http://www.1up.com/news/epic-games-cost-microsoft-billion
Microsoft doubled the RAM in their console in 2005 and that cost them a billion (I assume in projected LTD installed base)
I guess to avoid to make a costly console is one key to not sink your revenue.
Of course. That RAM wasn't cheap.
Back to reply to this comment, the GameCube got a lot of multiplats with the PS2 and Xbox as well, I saw a lot of games that were PS2/GameCube only and even saw some GameCube/Xbox only. The GameCube didn't get all the multiplats but the Xbox didn't as well, it was more of how much they both sold which was nothing compared to the PS2.
Yes, I think we all understand this but what a lot of us are saying is that we would happily pay for a more expensive console, maybe an extra £30-50 if it meant an awesome experience free of frame rate issues especially later on!
Faster ram would probably cost them about $10 per system, which they could pass on to us.
The difference being Wii isn't the only console on the market like GBA was the only handheld. It's not as if there's a newbie console coming. Playstation is established and so is Xbox now. They also have the majority third party support behind them. Fact is, Nintendo has never skimped on hardware until the Wii and Wii U.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
One thing to bear in mind, that often seems to get ignored with rose tinted glasses focused on the past, is that Nintendo's method of operation is nothing new. It absolutely isn't. They've always been this way. There's a strong effort to try and write a narrative about Nintendo having become "chickenshit" after the Gamecube era.
In reality, Nintendo has always done whatever the hell they want. And they always design hardware first and foremost by the lights of what their own hardware engineers and software designers feel is judicious - even when it means going against what anyone else would think.
Back in the day, there was quite a controversy that never ended, over the "weak" SNES hardware. The SNES was given a slow CPU (hmm... familiar). By the standards of its day, this made it very difficult for the SNES to perform well in popular genres of games. Shooters, fast arcade action with lots of sprites - these games were usually downscaled on SNES. The Genesis, by comparison, as the "action game console". It was significantly more effective at a variety of genres. This was a big deal then because the kinds of games the SNES was weak with, were leading and popular games of the day. People were upset, and this includes formal criticism - game reviews sometimes cited the weak hardware for undercutting a given game.
With the N64, Nintendo flipped off what everyone else was doing and went with cartridges. Reasons abound, such as controlling game production. But they also bowed to the wishes of their staff; their designers disliked the restrictions of early generation CD-ROM loading schemes and they didn't like dead screens while data was cached. The N64 hardware was also arguably weaker in terms of raw geometry than the Playstation 1, even if it had texture correction.
For the Gamecube, Nintendo flipped off again and went with proprietary optical discs that caused storage problems in exchange for extremely fast loading and caching, plus slowed down piracy. The Gamecube controller was unusual in shape and button layout (and availability). While it worked well for a variety of games, was problematic for some.
Thing is, it has always seemed that the Gamecube era was where hardware could still be designed that was sufficiently cost effective for Nintendo's tastes. The extreme jump in both power, and nature of technology that followed seemed to be something that worried them. So they took their philosophy of branching out, rather than only keeping up with the jones, to a new extreme.
I dunno, it's just that Nintendo has always done their own thing. That past game consoles lined up very approximately with the competition in terms of raw power, was not strictly due to Nintendo being "not cheap" in comparison to how they're characterized now.
The elephant in the room with these discussions seems to be this: Nintendo could have easily decided not to differentiate Wii U and made an Xbox 360 clone that spent more on CPU, ram, and watts with what the cost of the gamepad might've saved. It's not that they refused to make something that cost them (and retail) about this much. If that was the case, they would have made a $200 console that was slightly weaker than a 360, with nothing at all noteworthy about it and a generic gamepad.
But, they didn't. They evidently felt that a generic game console with a lot of power in a few typical areas wasn't a good strategy. Here's a question: how would Nintendo have been serviced by making an N-Box 560, aka, Gamecube II? It would have their games, plus easier multiplatform support. But with nothing to attract people outside of hardcore Nintendo fans (for the hardcore oriented Nintendo franchises), would it have made a difference? Does it seem likely that most people would just shrug, and stick with a Playstation, or Xbox, due to investment in their digital content, online services, and their own exclusives. Since they'd get the multiplatform games anyway.
Seems to a degree the only thing that will ever again make a lot of people happy is if Nintendo did just go 3rd party. Our problem is that Nintendo does not want to go 3rd party, because they like their own hardware - both from a perspective of making money, and for customizing around their own games.
Though, ironically, if either Microsoft or Sony ever drop out, that might be when we see Nintendo set their sights without reservations on the traditional, core oriented big leagues. Then there might be a point to them creating what many would see as a "pure" hardcore game console.
In reality, Nintendo has always done whatever the hell they want. And they always design hardware first and foremost by the lights of what their own hardware engineers and software designers feel is judicious - even when it means going against what anyone else would think.
Back in the day, there was quite a controversy that never ended, over the "weak" SNES hardware. The SNES was given a slow CPU (hmm... familiar). By the standards of its day, this made it very difficult for the SNES to perform well in popular genres of games. Shooters, fast arcade action with lots of sprites - these games were usually downscaled on SNES. The Genesis, by comparison, as the "action game console". It was significantly more effective at a variety of genres. This was a big deal then because the kinds of games the SNES was weak with, were leading and popular games of the day. People were upset, and this includes formal criticism - game reviews sometimes cited the weak hardware for undercutting a given game.
With the N64, Nintendo flipped off what everyone else was doing and went with cartridges. Reasons abound, such as controlling game production. But they also bowed to the wishes of their staff; their designers disliked the restrictions of early generation CD-ROM loading schemes and they didn't like dead screens while data was cached. The N64 hardware was also arguably weaker in terms of raw geometry than the Playstation 1, even if it had texture correction.
For the Gamecube, Nintendo flipped off again and went with proprietary optical discs that caused storage problems in exchange for extremely fast loading and caching, plus slowed down piracy. The Gamecube controller was unusual in shape and button layout (and availability). While it worked well for a variety of games, was problematic for some.
Thing is, it has always seemed that the Gamecube era was where hardware could still be designed that was sufficiently cost effective for Nintendo's tastes. The extreme jump in both power, and nature of technology that followed seemed to be something that worried them. So they took their philosophy of branching out, rather than only keeping up with the jones, to a new extreme.
I dunno, it's just that Nintendo has always done their own thing. That past game consoles lined up very approximately with the competition in terms of raw power, was not strictly due to Nintendo being "not cheap" in comparison to how they're characterized now.
The elephant in the room with these discussions seems to be this: Nintendo could have easily decided not to differentiate Wii U and made an Xbox 360 clone that spent more on CPU, ram, and watts with what the cost of the gamepad might've saved. It's not that they refused to make something that cost them (and retail) about this much. If that was the case, they would have made a $200 console that was slightly weaker than a 360, with nothing at all noteworthy about it and a generic gamepad.
But, they didn't. They evidently felt that a generic game console with a lot of power in a few typical areas wasn't a good strategy. Here's a question: how would Nintendo have been serviced by making an N-Box 560, aka, Gamecube II? It would have their games, plus easier multiplatform support. But with nothing to attract people outside of hardcore Nintendo fans (for the hardcore oriented Nintendo franchises), would it have made a difference? Does it seem likely that most people would just shrug, and stick with a Playstation, or Xbox, due to investment in their digital content, online services, and their own exclusives. Since they'd get the multiplatform games anyway.
Seems to a degree the only thing that will ever again make a lot of people happy is if Nintendo did just go 3rd party. Our problem is that Nintendo does not want to go 3rd party, because they like their own hardware - both from a perspective of making money, and for customizing around their own games.
Though, ironically, if either Microsoft or Sony ever drop out, that might be when we see Nintendo set their sights without reservations on the traditional, core oriented big leagues. Then there might be a point to them creating what many would see as a "pure" hardcore game console.
bigtroyjon
Member
lol, weren't you in that IGN rumor thread trying to convince everyone that IGN was super accurate and we should trust them?
The os prob can be fixed
Ports however will always be horrible on wiiu
They will not invest much money to the port
1 or 2 guys max
I mean the Battlefield designer sounds like he has no first hand knowledge of WiiU hardware or it's limitations implying he's not involved in anything running on it, of course that doesn't mean anything for rest of DICE but Battlefield is the flagship FB title. Of course the decision is not up to DICE, I think it's more telling of where EA's priorities are if that's the case.
This is all pure speculation based on a tweet though!
This is what happened with Wii also and why I am concerned. There are certain genres of games that are very popular and that lots of us want to play. Those will be on the 720 and PS4 no doubt and all I want is for them to be on the Wii U too.
I love how Nintendo wants to offer more, but I really can't help thinking that another $20 or so could have helped the be presented better. It could have helped launch titles to look better than they are and possibly better than current gen. It could have helped marketting by giving it the perception of being faster/better than current gen.
I just don't want to see it stumble and fall when Orbis/Durango come.
In my opinion the bold part is the real problem when it comes to judge about a consoles hardware. Given the fact he only designs levels and characters.
Does anybody here honestly thing nintendo would have been able to convince the hardcore crowd if they had a console that is equivalent to ps4 or 720 in terms of power or any third party for that matter? No they would have ignored it just as much. That market and that support is a written off position for nintendo they should not try to pursue something they will never achieve and should try to maintain whatever they have (casuals, kids and their own first party development resources)
Because frankly if nintendo scares of casuals and kids due to an exorbitant price by going for high end consoles they will loose a lot more sales then the few complaining hardcore gamers that would never buy a nintendo console no matter how powerful it is or not. Same with third parties. No matter how hard they try sony and ms will be the primary platforms and nintendo will be distant third unless nintendo decides not to make first party games
Because frankly if nintendo scares of casuals and kids due to an exorbitant price by going for high end consoles they will loose a lot more sales then the few complaining hardcore gamers that would never buy a nintendo console no matter how powerful it is or not. Same with third parties. No matter how hard they try sony and ms will be the primary platforms and nintendo will be distant third unless nintendo decides not to make first party games
I dnt understand what you are saying but nintendo consoles are established to. They dont have third party support but they have stronger first party titles.. This gen if you look at the top 20 titles saleswise wii and ds titles from nintendo take a major share
You're right, if someone like @repi from DICE commented on this it would have been far more notable but still as a designer he must know the limits what he can or can't do on a hardware in general, see the content of the tweet about player count etc.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Great post Kajima!
People dismiss the gamepad as cheap to make because there's no cpu in it. Well there's a CPU/GPU in the console, and that's included in the 299.99 you pay for the console. My first reaction is too call Nintendo cheap, but they really could have made a 360+ with motion controls for a much cheaper price.
People dismiss the gamepad as cheap to make because there's no cpu in it. Well there's a CPU/GPU in the console, and that's included in the 299.99 you pay for the console. My first reaction is too call Nintendo cheap, but they really could have made a 360+ with motion controls for a much cheaper price.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
He doesn't design levels or characters
He's the Lead Designer for BF3: Armored Kill, not a level or character designer, a different thing altogether.
Lead Designers have to work with both the art AND the programming/development side of game production.
Bidermaier
Member
I have thought about that since I saw Mario galaxy.
The last gen was a wet dream of a technophile. Many publishers are broke or out of business because they expected the technology to make their products more appealing... but they were just more expensive.
This philosophy only served well to the only company that could afford this "next gen" nosense Microsoft.
Nintendo being both a small company, with no other interest than publishing games and making hardware to run those games they have to care about designing a sustainable hardware evolution. They know what a software division can afford or not. They know when and how much can they push the hardware. Of course they have mistakes too, but no doubt they have the clearer view of the hardware and software evolution.
Similar threads
- Poll