Not sure where people are getting that idea, from what I understand it's just allowing 30% access of the second core for in-game use. Both cores are running at the same speed as before, and doubling cores is very different from doubling clock speeds.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wii U Speculation Thread 2: Can't take anymore of this!!!
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
Not sure where people are getting that idea, from what I understand it's just allowing 30% access of the second core for in-game use. Both cores are running at the same speed as before, and doubling cores is very different from doubling clock speeds.
-WindYoshi-
Banned
Nintendo knows that our world will be forever changed at the end of this year, that's why they are going to release the Wii U early so we can all enjoy it in our current form of existence just a little bit longer.
A month max is I guess what Nintendo needs from announcement to launch. They need to launch the campaign immediately after E3 but that's not going to be a problem. But I guess a July launch for Japan and early September for NA + EU or something alike is also possible.
Nintendo's not going to announce and launch it at E3. That would be insane. They don't need that much time however.
Nintendo's not going to announce and launch it at E3. That would be insane. They don't need that much time however.
specialguy
Banned
Be lucky if we get it this year...
Nah, that's going too far. While I'm sure Nintendo wants to delay it, market conditions force it's release this year. I'd bet November in the states (as it's default latest they can possibly release it)
Father_Brain
Banned
If Nintendo or anyone else has an effective means of keeping all the different retail chains they serve under NDA, that'd be news to me.
Totally different thing. Nintendo doubled the GPU clock during development of the hardware (when they decided to go with a stereoscopic screen), quite some time before launch.
bgassassin
Member
Yeah that was very extreme. I think the opposite would be true in that they would have released it sooner if they could.
Those type of leaks would happen around April when they would most likely disclose to retailers their intentions. There's no need to do that a whole six months beforehand. Especially when they won't even know the amount of supply they will have right now. Just projections at best.
SolarPowered
Member
Oh my god you guys had to make a new thread?
Jeeeez
*starts reading from page one again*
Jeeeez
*starts reading from page one again*
ThatObviousUser
ὠαἴÏÏιÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïαá¿Ï εἶ
Looks photoshoped!!!
Should have been a 360 + another 360 cut in half, for maximum lulz.
Cos they don't wanna get fired.
Ninjas.
brochiller
Member
Nintendo Ninjas are everywhere.
On a related note, I just googled "Nintendo Ninjas," and found this...
Nintendo Ninjas are everywhere.
On a related note, I just googled "Nintendo Ninjas," and found this...
So Iwata's evil twin doppelganger is John Romero?
Fitting.
Father_Brain
Banned
But for precisely that reason, if they're launching in July, they couldn't and wouldn't keep the full launch hardware/software details under wraps until E3.
bgassassin
Member
Under wraps to who? Consumers or retailers? Because I'm not talking about both.
User Name Here
Member
I don't know about you guys, but man the wait is killing me lol.
If it gets to retailers, it's guaranteed to leak out to the press.
Father_Brain
Banned
Both. They're interchangeable, since it's impossible to keep retailers under NDA and they'd need a few months of advance notice.
bgassassin
Member
And as I was saying that stuff would probably leak in April which would be around the time they would most likely talk to retailers for a launch around that time. That said when Nintendo announced the Wii's release in September, I don't recall that being leaked beforehand.
I'm not understanding what you are debating against.
Fourth Storm
Member
I'm looking forward to the investor's q&a. Unlike the gaming media, the investor questions hit hard and hold Iwata completely accountable for his decisions. Some of the questions sound like posts straight outa the pages of neogaf. haha. Great reads if you have the time. Even if Iwata blatantly says that he needs to withhold certain info for the protection of the company, you gain alot of insight into his philosophy and he does fire back at things like Nintendo not keeping up with the times and whatnot...
But perhaps Nintendo is planning a "Year of the Wii U" with little bits of info being dropped more and more starting next week with the Nintendo Network announcement (we need something for our sanity here so please). Wii U was merely weary from just coming out of hibernation at CES. By the time launch hits after E3, they'll be in full-on blitz mode for July or September at the latest.
But perhaps Nintendo is planning a "Year of the Wii U" with little bits of info being dropped more and more starting next week with the Nintendo Network announcement (we need something for our sanity here so please). Wii U was merely weary from just coming out of hibernation at CES. By the time launch hits after E3, they'll be in full-on blitz mode for July or September at the latest.
Please don't invoke the Dreamcast in this discussion again. Nintendo hasn't fucked up NEARLY bad enough to end up with a Dreamcast situation.
Also, I think everyone is right regarding launch window. bgassassin is right in that it'll be out in July. IN JAPAN. And the rest of us get it after summer. It's my understanding that there's fewer retail leaks in Japan and thus won't be as likely to be exposed. And Nintendo loses out on nothing in this scenario.
bgassassin
Member
I originally felt that way as well, but then it dawned on me. Wii came out first in NA. It's plausible the same thing happens with a NA release first for Wii U. This console is more for "us" anyway so it's only logical we get it first.
I dunno if that's fair to say. The Japanese have a hardcore audience that's felt just as burned about Wii as many of us were. In some ways even more so, since developers in Japan stopped making games that catered to them in favor of the HD consoles that only sold in great numbers in the West. Having a Nintendo HD console could be seen as a way to turn the tide for them in that regard.
And, at the time, that's exactly what people were saying about Sega with the
Dreamcast
Do I think it's likely? No. Do I think it's possible that 3rd parties will leave Nintendo in a similar lurch when the PS4 and 720 launch if they don't play their cards right? It could happen.
bgassassin
Member
For me it's that Japan has become more about the handheld while NA has become more about the home console. Like you pointed out even Japanese devs/pubs made the adjustment for home consoles and they sold well in the West. The window between the launches wouldn't have to be large, but I could see NA getting Wii U first.
Father_Brain
Banned
Ah, okay then. Yeah, I guess an April reveal would work for a July launch as well. But not later than that.
As for the Wii September announcement - I'm not sure if retailers actually had advance notice, but there only would have been so much to leak. The system had already had a proper unveiling at E3 2006 with an actual software lineup shown off, as opposed to the half-reveal Wii U got last year, and retailers already more or less knew that the system would be launching in November by that point.
Why doesn't anyone compare the Wii U to the DS? I know they are different markets, but isn't the Wii U being showcased in a similar fashion to how the DS was?
And when it comes to specs, the DS had short comings next to the PSP... but in the end the DS had better "experiences." imo, at least.
Maybe someone can enlighten me, if I am mistaken.
And when it comes to specs, the DS had short comings next to the PSP... but in the end the DS had better "experiences." imo, at least.
Maybe someone can enlighten me, if I am mistaken.
Don't know if this has been posted already
http://www.zeldainformer.com/2012/0...ntendo-network-yes-were-already-using-it.html
"Next week Nintendo holds a conference on the 26th, which is the same conference in which they sort of released a bunch of 3DS details last year. So you can expect to hear some news regarding this new online system, and how it will possibly connect both the 3DS and Wii U together. Also, could we finally get a few new details about the Wii U in general?"
http://www.zeldainformer.com/2012/0...ntendo-network-yes-were-already-using-it.html
"Next week Nintendo holds a conference on the 26th, which is the same conference in which they sort of released a bunch of 3DS details last year. So you can expect to hear some news regarding this new online system, and how it will possibly connect both the 3DS and Wii U together. Also, could we finally get a few new details about the Wii U in general?"
I sort of thought that as well until I heard some questions asked last year that sounded like some were only interested in money above all and wanted Nintendo to make iPhone games along with 3DS games or something. One said he didn't care about video games and just wanted money, money, money, which is of course, fine, but that led do his display of distinct ignorance of how the video games hardware industry works (R&D time, manufacturing).
Just because questions are "hard-hitting" doesn't mean they're good questions.
Fourth Storm
Member
Launching in the summer just doesn't seem like a Nintendo thing to do. Remember they used to talk about wanting kids to go play outside more and only game in moderation? They were blowing that trumpet a few years back. Besides, as a kid, it was agonizing but effective to have a summer of anticipation before a console hit in the fall.
The Dreamcast notion needs to die. Nintendo is remarkably more powerful, capable, and managed than Sega ever was.
You are correct in pointing out that the perceived lack of third party support on the Wii is not because of some sort of conspiracy or mass stupidity amongst third parties, but that doesn't mean that it's because Nintendo has been mean to them (as your seem to be implying with your party analogy).
Businesses are businesses. Their purpose is to make money, and the decisions they make are the ones they think are most likely to make money. They don't make massive strategic decisions on the back of whether they like the other company or not, and if you don't believe me look at the enormous amount of business that Apple and Samsung are doing with each other while also engaging in high-profile international litigation against each other.
In the case of third parties, their decision on whether or not to support a particular platform with a particular game is based on a very simple equation:
expected profit = expected revenues from supporting the platform - cost of supporting the platform
Factoring in a slight adjustment for risk aversion, that equation is how publishers decide whether they're going to release a given game for a given platform. If they expect it to be profitable, they'll support the platform, and if they don't, they won't.
The expected revenues come down to a fairly simple question; how many people who own/will own this console would want to buy this game? You might notice that there's an issue here. If third parties release lots of, say, grass-mowing simulators for a console, then the sort of people who like grass-mowing simulators will buy that console, which mean publishers will release more grass-mowing simulators. Conversely, if publishers don't release any games where you play as a fish for the console, then people who like those games won't buy the console and publishers consequently won't release any fish games for the console. This is an example of multiple equilibria. If a console reaches an equilibrium of being a grass-mowing fans console but not a fish fans console (which happens very early in the console's life), then it's incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to shift to an equilibrium where the console gets lots of games with fish in them.
Nintendo's successes and failures over the years have had nothing to do with how nice they are to third parties, and everything to do with publishers maximising expected profits and markets settling into equilibrium. The NES and SNES settled into stable equilibria where their install bases were large and covered pretty much the entire breadth of the market. This meant they got a lot of third party support, and a lot of it was exclusive because the cost of porting to the Master System/Mega Drive was proportionally quite high, due to the architectural differences and the use of assembly code back in those days. When the Playstation arrived, publishers didn't support it because they were dying to get away from Nintendo, they did it because the Nintendo 64 used cartridges which cost $10-$15 per game, whereas the Playstation used CDs which cost 10c-15c per game. This meant a big increase in profit per game sold, so publishers flooded to the system, leading to the success it had. Once again the different architectures meant porting was proportionally expensive, so most games saved exclusive to the Playstation.
When it came to the PS2, it retained the same branding as the Playstation and the same target audience. It also had a head start on the XBox and Gamecube, which it used to it's advantage to take over from the PlayStation by fitting into the same high-sales, catering to everyone equilibrium. Architectural differences were still quite high, so multi-platform development didn't become a de facto standard, but became more commonplace than it was before as the overall cost of game development started to increase. Gamecube, with an audience comprising pretty much solely of Nintendo fans, got few third party exclusives other than ones which were decided upon before launch (like RE4) and some niche titles that publishers thought suited Nintendo's fan base. XBox did get a decent number of third party exclusives and PS2 ports given it's low sales, which were a little bit to do with Microsoft's decision to target "core" gamers, and a lot to do with their decision to throw money all over the place.
The current generation is the most interesting one, as it's the first in which the industry has been firmly divided between consoles which target "core" gamers and a console which targets "casual" gamers. Both Sony and Microsoft firmly established their consoles as being targeted at the core audience, with high prices and a focus on hardware power and FPS games. They both assumed that targeting a core audience early on would bring the necessary install base to gradually shift to a situation where they appeal to casual gamers too. They were wrong. They both settled into equilibria where they had a reasonably large base of core customers and almost no casual customers, and their attempts to court casual gamers were largely unsuccessful even as prices came down (I'll get to Kinect in a bit). Furthermore, architectural similarities, coupled with the enormous costs of modern game development, made multi-platform development the de facto standard for almost all third party games produced for the two consoles.
Meanwhile, Nintendo were taking a very different route. After their failure to achieve broad high-sales equilibria for either the N64 or Gamecube, they decided to adopt their "blue ocean" strategy and very explicitly target casual gamers. This proved pretty damn successful for them, for the early years at least. While MS and Sony were fighting over the core audience, Nintendo managed to release a console which was enormously successful amongst casual gamers, and quickly built a very large user base. Because of the controller, weaker hardware and different GPU design of the Wii, ports of PS360 multi platform games haven't been feasible this generation, so publishers have effectively had three choices; release the game on the PS3 and XBox360, release in on the Wii, or develop effectively separate versions for PS360 and Wii.
Here's the kicker, though. Third parties have actually been choosing the second and third options quite a bit this gen, but they're games, or versions of games, which just don't get talked about on places like gaf. Series like Just Dance and the Rabbids games have done incredibly well on the Wii, and in Japan big titles like Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest have come to the console. These, and a lot of smaller titles, are third party games that have been developed for the Wii because they target the audience who bought the console (mostly not people like us). There have even been a lot of games in the third category, including core games like the Call of Duty franchise, but we tend to ignore the Wii editions of these here on gaf (then again, the general public tended to ignore the Wii editions of CoD, too).
The main reason for the decline in Wii sales (aside from general console life-cycles) has been that this is the only generation with a significant mid-gen shift in equilibria, which was in the form of Kinect. It's worth noting that Microsoft repeatedly tried and failed to get the XBox and XBox360 in the hands of causal gamers (e.g. Viva Piñata), and that Sony did the same. Only by releasing something as immediately, hugely successful amongst casual gamers as Kinect could MS shift from their core gamer equilibrium to one where they get both casual and core support (and even then, you could argue that the Kinect is effectively an entirely new platform, as there doesn't appear to be a lot of crossover between Kinect users and XBox360 gamepad users). This has hurt Nintendo, as Kinect has now become the venue of choice for casual motion games, leaving them without big exclusive casual games at the same time as they've not been hitting the right notes with their first party titles.
Regardless of the effects of Kinect, the Wii has by no means been a failure. It's on track to sell over 5 times as much as it's predecessor, and has some of the best selling games in history in it's catalog. It's also got quite a bit of third party support, even if it's not aimed at people like us.
What does seem to be clear, though, is that Nintendo's targeting a different strategy for next gen. With likely competition from Microsoft in the casual space, Nintendo is trying to do what didn't happen for any console in the previous gen; quickly reach an equilibrium with high sales and a broad audience. To actually achieve that, they're going to need the following:
- A controller which fits both core games and casual games
- An architecture similar enough to the other consoles for ports
- Several exclusive games released early on which have a strong appeal to casual gamers
- Several exclusive games released early on which have a strong appeal to core gamers
- An expectation amongst the industry, before the console even launches, that it will target a broad audience
- A bit of luck
Nintendo seem to have the first two (or at least are attempting the first two). If they play their cards right, they should be able to do the third on their own. The fourth, though, is where third parties come in. If they're going the route I'd like them to, they have Retro working on a graphical showcase core game, such as an online fps, for launch. Sufficiently marketed, that could provide one core exclusive, but they'll need more, which means getting the wallet out and shopping for third party titles, and not just side-games of established franchises, but original games and big franchise games, and with significant advertising budgets. Hopefully their code of silence on third party games thus far is a sign that they're trying this and want to keep the reveals for E3, but you never know.
The fifth item on the list is by far the trickiest. This is about getting the industry in an equilibrium where everyone supports the Wii U because everyone supports the Wii U. Which basically means convincing every publisher that every other publisher is supporting the Wii U. This is the big reason that I believe Nintendo is keeping everything so quiet on the games front for so long. If they let publishers announce games gradually since last June, then the early announcements would have a big impact on other publishers considering the console, which could snowball into an equilibrium where the system is considered a heavily casual focussed platform before we'd even got to 2012. In contrast, by announcing both a big number of core games and a big number of casual games at the same time at E3 2012, Nintendo can establish that there will be market for both, which can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. The year of silence gives Nintendo time to go to publishers and convince them that the console will be targeting a broad audience, and the lack of any clear evidence from other publishers to the contrary makes them much more likely to give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt and support the console with both core and casual games from the get-go.
There's also another big factor that may well come into play in the next gen:
If the architectures of next-gen consoles are similar enough, virtually every third party game will arrive on all three consoles
Will this be the case? I think so. While MS and Sony's next consoles will be more powerful than the Wii U, the gap won't be anywhere near what it was this gen. More importantly, though, they'll have the same basic GPU architecture (possibly even made by the same company), which means game engines can be made to cover all three consoles, with scaled down assets and fewer effects on the Wii U version. Considering the huge development budgets we're going to see next gen, the marginal cost of supporting all three consoles will be pretty low, meaning the only reason we won't see a non money-hatted third party title on a given system is if there's literally zero market for it. Given the guaranteed sales from Nintendo fans alone, that shouldn't ever be the case for the Wii U.
If that's what's coming next gen, then Nintendo are in a pretty good position, because the generation is going to come down to three things; first party games, price and head start, and at the moment Nintendo looks pretty good on all three fronts.
So long as they make good use of the head start, that is.
B-b-but they're DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!
Father_Brain
Banned
It's an investor briefing, not a gaming-focused press conference. There will almost certainly be some bits of actual Wii/3DS news there, but please, please, keep your expectations reasonable. (i.e., don't expect anything substantive Wii U-related)
bgassassin
Member
You're still misunderstanding what I'm saying then if you are saying "April reveal". The thing is with my job I do a lot of work in retail stores (Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, etc.). Nintendo could discuss this stuff with their corporate offices and the stores not learn this till "last minute". I set up a lot of displays that the stores don't even know about till they get the display in the store and I have to tell them where it's supposed to go. And these displays have already been approved by their corporate offices. So Nintendo could talk to retailer corporate offices in April (continuing with that theme) and announce the launch at E3 that it's coming out in July without it ever once being leaked between that time. And from there then the stores would get proper notice on doing their resets to accommodate the new incoming product. If there was a leak, it would have to be from someone on the corporate level and that's not guaranteed to happen.
AceBandage
Banned
How do you know it's a second Wii U game?
-Pyromaniac-
Member
great post, but I want to emphasize this part. The year head start is the year they need to build a new identity and launch it as far as they can before the other 2 even hit the loading dock. It'll be interesting to see how hard/fast they hit the ground running, or if they plan a slow burn launch/launch window.
Spot on for everything in your post.
Yeah, "smaller project" sounds like a 3DS or downloadable game, or even another Mario Kart 7 deal where they're contributing to another dev team's game.
If they do, they're either suicidal idiots or they learned nothing from the 3DS.
That's really all I have to add...
- Status