Support NeoGAF

[StreetsAhead]

I do wonder how far back they'll reach.

I half-expect Dead Space 1 and Mass Effect 2 $60 releases.

Skyward Sword. Believe.

 

[guek]

ok, with all this talk here's my one question:

If Nintendo truly was serious about trying to win back the hardcore audience, and they were indeed in a comfortable financial position after the DS and the Wii, WHY did they not go all out on the Wii U, making it an absolute BEAST to dominate the market in terms of sheer power and make 3rd parties flock to them like sheep?

Sometimes it IS viable to lose money on each unit when the long term gain is worth it (taking the market back)

You're essentially saying it's viable to lose money.

You're confusing what YOU want with what's best for nintendo as a company. Their current business model has worked for them very well so far, and I'm not even talking about just the wii. It'd be nice if they took a huge loss and released a monster for cheap, but that wouldn't be in their best interest, even if they sold to PS2 levels.

 

[Log4Girlz]

ok, with all this talk here's my one question:

If Nintendo truly was serious about trying to win back the hardcore audience, and they were indeed in a comfortable financial position after the DS and the Wii, WHY did they not go all out on the Wii U, making it an absolute BEAST to dominate the market in terms of sheer power and make 3rd parties flock to them like sheep?

Sometimes it IS viable to lose money on each unit when the long term gain is worth it (taking the market back)

A beast? I mean, I would love that, I would totally approve. But Nintendo is not going to lose billions like MS and Sony did.

 

[orioto]

You're essentially saying it's viable to lose money.

You're confusing what YOU want with what's best for nintendo as a company. Their current business model has worked for them very well so far, and I'm not even talking about just the wii. It'd be nice if they took a huge loss and released a monster for cheap, but that wouldn't be in their best interest, even if they sold to PS2 levels.

Again, let's not forget the NGC was at least totally in the same league of other consoles of its gen, and it was cheap (even at initial price) and they weren't taking a loss...

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

As long as a separate team isn't needed, publishers will by and large prefer to make Wii U versions.

I would have to disagree with the bolded. Third party publishers never seemed to care much for releasing games on Nintendo consoles due to sales and being overshadowed by Nintendo's output. Add in the fact that online will almost definitely be inferior to the competition, Nintendo's usually shitty way of dealing with third parties and vice versa, and I struggle to be optimistic.

The Nintendo Wii's miniscule third party support was more of a necessity for third parties cause it is the leading platform of this generation.

 

[blu]

So let's quantify that impact. PSUs these days have 85%+ efficiency. It could certainly be better in a closed box where the thing is designed exactly to target, unlike PCs, but hey, let me be generous with you guys.

Yes, let's be generous, apparently closed-box PSUs use alien tech not available to 'open box' PSU's, whatever that means.

A 60W box with an 85% efficient internal PSU becomes a 71W box. 11W lost and dissipated in the PSU. OMG, that sure makes all the difference in the world. Right?

Right, with the only remark that the original slim was drawing 107W sustained. By your overly optimistic PSU efficiency of 85%, that makes 16W dissipated; by a more realistic efficiency of 80%, that figure jumps to 21W of dissipated heat, from the power brick alone. While we have no data of the slim's TDP, you can bet your bottom that the the rest of the components contribute another 20-ish W of dissipation.

Have you ever touched a 40-ish W tungsten light bulb while it's on? The thing about tungsten bulbs is that they convert almost all their power into heat, so they give a good idea of what a 40W heater would produce. In case you haven't, let me tell you that the bulb heats up to unbearable hot (>50C) within a fraction of a minute from powering on. While the bulb does not suffer that much from the heat, same heat needs to be disposed out of the slim's enclosure, or else.

And to reiterate: the WiiU as it was shown is half the volume of a (75W) PS3slim and is cooled by a single 40mm fan.

Erm, yes, only that it's a 107W slim, with 20-ish W of heat dissipation from the PSU alone. But thanks for the analysis anyway.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

I agree with JJ though. You can't say you agree with what we're saying about the IGN piece, and then still try to hang on to it as support. You can't have it both ways. Either you disagree with us, or you agree that it's a poor example that can't be used. Also your view has been changing over the posts you've made to continue to hold on to IGN's article. I understand wanting results, but you're not going to see anything tangible till next year.

As for clocks yes, Nintendo hasn't even told that to the devs from what we know so there's no concern of it being leaked. Considering the holes in info that lherre mentioned, I wouldn't be surprised if Moore is going to see how those holes are being filled.

We still don't know if Nintendo has even finalized anything. I'd be under the impression that the GPU will tape-out between now (if not already) and the end of the year. That said the CPU may not be taped out either so I would just heavily suggest not bothering with trying to find tangible results.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, I'm just irritated that I'm unable to communicate properly what I'm trying to say. I'll try to explain it better here.

I know the PC IGN built doesn't have the same components Nintendo is putting into the Wii U. They even state in the article that the parts are comparable but will be significantly different in the Wii U itself. What I'm saying is that the PC IGN built produced similar results to what kind of power devs were expecting out of Wii U at the time. When they were asking their devs what kind of graphics they could expect, the only gauge they had to compare to were off the shelf parts which their sources gave them. IGN then took what they heard and built a PC to see the results.

What I'm saying is that IGN took a few third party games and built a PC as a showcase to display what kind of graphics we could expect if Wii U were already on the market today.

The way I interpreted the article is that their goal was to show us what games on the Wii U might look like, not what actual parts might be in the system itself. It sounded to me like IGN called up some developers they knew had a Wii U dev kit and asked them what kind of performance they could get out it. The devs probably said something along the lines of, "Take a PC with a Triple Core Athlon II CPU clocked at X, a 4850 GPU clocked at X with X ram and you have a rough estimate of what the games on Wii U will look like."

Their results were exciting to me. I think the Wii U will be capable a running most PS3/360 games at 1080p and possibly 60 fps with a few extra bells and whistles at a minimum. Games built from the ground up on Wii U have the potential to look better than anything we've seen today. However, when I take the Wii U into context of what the next Xbox or Playstation to be capable of, it's natural to assume they will be able to do more. That's why I think the Wii U will be able to play the same next gen games as Xbox 720/PS4 but it will be like comparing the Dreamcast to Xbox or Gamecube. It will be underpowered. This assumption is based soley on the time I assume the next Xbox/Playstation will come out and the progression of computing power. There's a lot of assuming there, but the thread is about speculation anyway, so that's my best guess.

So when I look at the big picture, it looks to me like the performance IGN found seems to jive with what devs are saying the system will be capable of. I don't know how to be more clear about it. Yes the parts in the PC were different, but the results are the same. It would be the same as if prior to the launch of Xbox 360 they said a comparable system would be a PC with a 3GHz P4 and a 500MHz 1900 XT w/256MB of ram and 1 GB system memory. There was no way of knowing what games would eventually end up looking like, but they knew the average PS2/Xbox port would have a much higher resolution a better framerate and more bells and whistles. Look at the launch games of 360 like Call of Duty 2, Kameo and PGR3 and that's pretty much what we got. The games went on to look better but we had a rough estimate of what launch games would look like.

 

[AceBandage]

That old IGN video is useless.
Again, we have no idea what Nintendo has done with the Wii U since E3.
They've been taking a LOT of developer feed back, and if third parties say "Hey! Beef that shit up!" you can bet it happened.

 

[BurntPork]

ok, with all this talk here's my one question:

If Nintendo truly was serious about trying to win back the hardcore audience, and they were indeed in a comfortable financial position after the DS and the Wii, WHY did they not go all out on the Wii U, making it an absolute BEAST to dominate the market in terms of sheer power and make 3rd parties flock to them like sheep?

Sometimes it IS viable to lose money on each unit when the long term gain is worth it (taking the market back)

MS and Sony STILL don't have that money back. It's not worth it. They can (and probably will) take a small initial loss, but nothing near what Sony and MS did.

 

[BurntPork]

PS3 got a late Bioshock port.

Wouldn't surprise me if the Bioshock 2 team was tasked with porting Infinite to Wii U at some point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc

 

[EDarkness]

The whole IR pointer vs standard controls is going to be interesting. Are devs going to implement a plethora of controls and allow you to chose or locks you into one or other other. I don't feel that pointer controls would work well in most games in combination with the pad, as it'd have to sit on your lap and you'd have to glance down considerably to look at it.

I do love pointer controls for FPS titles on the Wii. Way, way better than sticks, but if I had to chose sticks and U pad vs pointer, I'd go for the former cause I think it'd offer way more options.

I don't think that's really a problem. This mockup kinda gives an idea of a way they could do it. As log as the controller had some kind of stand, it would work.

I generally play while sitting on the floor, and it wouldn't be a problem at all to prop the controller in front of me where I could touch it if need be. If looking down was going to be a problem, it was going to be a problem regardless of whether you're holding it or not. I guess we'll see how it all works out, but I'm sure it can work out and if someone can't play that way, then they can always pick up the Wiipad and go about their business.

 

[walking fiend]

The Wii U is going to get a ton of late ports. I expect developers to flood the launch with games a good few months old, then whine when they don't sell.

I wonder if they don't sell.

RE4 on Wii sold well over a million, despite being released on Gamecube and PS2, and HD consoles combined are behind these two combined by a few good 10m.

I suspect a lot of people will buy new games on Wii U if they are updated just as much as RE4 was compared to either PS2 or GC version.

 

[Man God]

The Wii U is going to get a ton of late ports. I expect developers to flood the launch with games a good few months old, then whine when they don't sell.

If they do it right they can make decent coin by getting out really good ports right at launch. Worked very well for the 360's launch.

 

[EDarkness]

I wonder if they don't sell.

RE4 on Wii sold well over a million, despite being released on Gamecube and PS2, and HD consoles combined are behind these two combined by a few good 10m.

I suspect a lot of people will buy new games on Wii U if they are updated just as much as RE4 was compared to either PS2 or GC version.

I would buy a lot of old games again if they were on the Wii U with IR (or motion) support.

 

[walking fiend]

I would buy a lot of old games again if they were on the Wii U with IR (or motion) support.

I guess a lot of people will buy them solely because Wii U will be their, or their kids, first HD console.

What's interesting, is that the kid generation who grew up with the Wii, will be potentially 6 years older when Wii U kicks in, and maybe a lot of T and M games that was refrained from them by their parents, will become available to them.

 

[bgassassin]

I don't want to beat a dead horse, I'm just irritated that I'm unable to communicate properly what I'm trying to say. I'll try to explain it better here.

I know the PC IGN built doesn't have the same components Nintendo is putting into the Wii U. They even state in the article that the parts are comparable but will be significantly different in the Wii U itself. What I'm saying is that the PC IGN built produced similar results to what kind of power devs were expecting out of Wii U at the time. When they were asking their devs what kind of graphics they could expect, the only gauge they had to compare to were off the shelf parts which their sources gave them. IGN then took what they heard and built a PC to see the results.

What I'm saying is that IGN took a few third party games and built a PC as a showcase to display what kind of graphics we could expect if Wii U were already on the market today.

The way I interpreted the article is that their goal was to show us what games on the Wii U might look like, not what actual parts might be in the system itself. It sounded to me like IGN called up some developers they knew had a Wii U dev kit and asked them what kind of performance they could get out it. The devs probably said something along the lines of, "Take a PC with a Triple Core Athlon II CPU clocked at X, a 4850 GPU clocked at X with X ram and you have a rough estimate of what the games on Wii U will look like."

Their results were exciting to me. I think the Wii U will be capable a running most PS3/360 games at 1080p and possibly 60 fps with a few extra bells and whistles at a minimum. Games built from the ground up on Wii U have the potential to look better than anything we've seen today. However, when I take the Wii U into context of what the next Xbox or Playstation to be capable of, it's natural to assume they will be able to do more. That's why I think the Wii U will be able to play the same next gen games as Xbox 720/PS4 but it will be like comparing the Dreamcast to Xbox or Gamecube. It will be underpowered. This assumption is based soley on the time I assume the next Xbox/Playstation will come out and the progression of computing power. There's a lot of assuming there, but the thread is about speculation anyway, so that's my best guess.

So when I look at the big picture, it looks to me like the performance IGN found seems to jive with what devs are saying the system will be capable of. I don't know how to be more clear about it. Yes the parts in the PC were different, but the results are the same. It would be the same as if prior to the launch of Xbox 360 they said a comparable system would be a PC with a 3GHz P4 and a 500MHz 1900 XT w/256MB of ram and 1 GB system memory. There was no way of knowing what games would eventually end up looking like, but they knew the average PS2/Xbox port would have a much higher resolution a better framerate and more bells and whistles. Look at the launch games of 360 like Call of Duty 2, Kameo and PGR3 and that's pretty much what we got. The games went on to look better but we had a rough estimate of what launch games would look like.

You're explaining yourself fine. I just don't think you realize that you are contradicting yourself and changing what you are saying. And you did it all in one post this time so I hope I can show you what we're talking about. Let's look at this paragraph.

I know the PC IGN built doesn't have the same components Nintendo is putting into the Wii U. They even state in the article that the parts are comparable but will be significantly different in the Wii U itself.

then you say...

What I'm saying is that the PC IGN built produced similar results to what kind of power devs were expecting out of Wii U at the time.

I underlined that part because...

So when I look at the big picture, it looks to me like the performance IGN found seems to jive with what devs are saying the system will be capable of.

You're jumping back and forth between current and future and saying different parts indicate the same performance both now and in the future.

First your comparison doesn't work because what goes on with PCs can't be applied 1:1 with a console. Second, and what I think you're missing the most but might be able to see thanks to the comparison you gave, is the alpha dev kit for the 360 was an Apple G5 that used a dual processor (not core, processor) PPC that was around 2.5Ghz, about 512MB of DDR2 memory, and a Radeon 9800 with I think 256MB of GDDR3. So for you to get a better idea of what you are saying, and what IGN did, it would be like IGN building a PC comparable to that G5, not your example. That's the point that I'm pushing as hard as possible. It's an alpha dev kit IGN built. You can't gain any future performance ideas from that. And even with it being off the shelf parts, there are enough factors that are different in what Nintendo's alpha kit had compared to that PC that would affect current comparisons for better or for worse. After all what little we saw at E3 were built from underclocked alpha kits in a small window. If there's something to get excited from, it's not the IGN article, it's the Zelda and Bird demos we saw at E3 created on underclocked alpha kits that were created in a small amount of time. Zelda demos have a history of not looking as good as the final.

The devs are all guessing what it might look like. Yes some have called it "not next gen", "stop gap", etc. Then you also have Vigil saying they would build Darksiders 2 on par with PS360, but if Wii U turns out to have some kind of massive jump they would reconsider. And recently you have Moore going to Japan to check on specs and progress. Heck unless they've taped out their CPU and GPU, even Nintendo doesn't know what the final can do, so how can 3rd parties? Like I said before, until we see all three consoles we don't know where Wii U falls.

Just to clarify I'm not mad at what you are saying, I just hope you see what we are talking about now. The most interesting thing I take from the IGN article is that they used a 1GB card since that was info that was supposed to come from developers and I assumed it was 512MB.

 

[Gambit]

I do wonder how far back they'll reach.

I half-expect Dead Space 1 and Mass Effect 2 $60 releases.

I would buy a lot of old games again if they were on the Wii U with IR (or motion) support.

If both had IR-Aiming I would buy them at a high price. (Especially if it was "Dead Space Trilogy" or "Mass Effect Trilogy") [I know Microsoft has Mass Effect 1 locked down, but maybe only this generation...)

Anyway, I think some ports could be worthwhile and would nicely bolster the release schedule.

 

[SolarPowered]

I do wonder how far back they'll reach.

I half-expect Dead Space 1 and Mass Effect 2 $60 releases.

That is pretty terrible.

If I were them I'd be packing ME1/2 for $60 and Dead Space 1/2 for the same price. Those games will be pretty damned old by then and it seems like a nice way to entice people and get them into the universe of each franchise.

It's not like they'd be losing any money on ports that are old as heck...

The Nintendo Wii's miniscule third party support was more of a necessity for third parties cause it is the leading platform of this generation.

I'd say it had more to do with funding HD projects, but that works too I guess.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

I'd buy compilations of previously-released games.

Dead Space Collection with DS1, 2 and HD Extraction? (With extra content included this time) I put about six hours in the original Dead Space and liked it, but never really got around to finishing it.

 

[guek]

MadOdorMachine, it just feels like you're ignoring all other existing rumors in order to blindly cling to that ign article. There's also the fact that they say specifically within the article itself that they're using comparable components of what they heard will actually be in the wii, not components that would give you similar performance of a wii u by playing nothing but current gen games.

That makes no sense whatsoever. I have a hard time believing their sources told them to build a machine and only play current gen games with an extra sheen on them (no witcher 2, etc.). If that were the case, actual components wouldn't matter at all (which is what you seem to be suggesting). That contradicts the entire point of the ign article which is clear in its premise: building an actual model wii u prototype.

Then there's the fact that nothing about the parts they used in that article were all too surprising. They were slightly higher end than rumors have suggested (perhaps to try to overcome the OS overhead), but their "leaks" seem identical to what people have been estimating all over the internet: rv770, 1-1.5gb ram, 2.0-2.5ghz triple core PPC. It makes no sense to use rumored specs and then basically say the actual parts used don't matter, we're just trying to see some sort of nebulous predicted performance.

 

[TunaLover]

If Wii U is to Dreamcast what PS4/720 is to GameCube then the difference in power will be abysmal. =/

 

[dacuk]

If Wii U is to Dreamcast what PS4/720 is to GameCube then the difference in power will be abysmal. =/

May I ask where did you get this comparison from?

 

[JJConrad]

I don't think that's really a problem. This mockup kinda gives an idea of a way they could do it. As log as the controller had some kind of stand, it would work.

http://hiero.omc-games.com/pic/garvs_mockup.png[/img]

I generally play while sitting on the floor, and it wouldn't be a problem at all to prop the controller in front of me where I could touch it if need be. If looking down was going to be a problem, it was going to be a problem regardless of whether you're holding it or not. I guess we'll see how it all works out, but I'm sure it can work out and if someone can't play that way, then they can always pick up the Wiipad and go about their business.

I don't understand why more people don't consider the optimal configuration as being a Wiimote in one hand and the WiiU tablet in the other... sword and shield style. The tablet has to be designed to be held one-handed or else the whole touch screen concept of it becomes cumbersome. It gives more controls than with the nunchuck and doesn't require a stand.

 

[TunaLover]

May I ask where did you get this comparison from?

Just throwing in the worst case scenario, of course generation gaps tend to be less visible every generation.

 

[dacuk]

Just throwing in the worst case scenario, of course generation gaps tend to be less visible every generation.

Ok. I was not trying to be confrontative, I just thought you have some new information.

Geez, the wait for new data for WiiU is getting GAF anxious...

 

[Rolf NB]

May I ask where did you get this comparison from?

IGN sources most likely.

MadOdorMachine, it just feels like you're ignoring all other existing rumors in order to blindly cling to that ign article. There's also the fact that they say specifically within the article itself that they're using comparable components of what they heard will actually be in the wii

They should have just quoted what their sources said. None of that PC building helped anyone. IGN writers don't seem very technical on average, to put it nicely. We will never know just how wrong their interpretation was of what they've heard, if what they've heard was even substantial to begin with. We've heard developers drop non-statements like "Oh we're very happy with the system" before, and learned nothing from them. How will we ever find out what IGN "heard" if IGN won't tell us? In no way are we better served by being at least two steps removed, 1)interpretation of what was said or not said and 2)choice of "equivalent" PC components to match that interpretation.

I hate IGN. Hate hate hate. All they do is suck.

 

[sfried]

So we're back to speculating power levels again, instead of, well, tech-talk and confirm-talk. And I thought this thread was going somewhere. High hopes I guess...

Beyond3D is now theorizing powerdraw vs. cooling & form factor from the unit they saw at E3.

The yellow square are the miniPCI cards where Bluetooth and WiFi interfaces can be found, the red square i the electrical control part of the mainboard, the sami-transparent grey area is the BluRay drive, the black one is the CPU die, strong blue is the NAND Flash Chip. I have put the main RAM and the System LSI (a processor that unifies memory control, i/o control, GPU and eDRAM in a single die) inside a Type A MXM V.3.0 module (35W), the light blue area is the fan in the back of the console box.

The power consumption legend is this:

MXM Module (GPU+RAM+I/O+NB): 35W.
CPU: 10W.
NAND Flash, MiniPCI Cards: 5W
BluRay: 5W.
USB Ports: 10W (2.5W each).

65W in total, the typical power consumption of a netbook.

Seems plausible, but I wonder if they might do some changes to accomodate some highspeed wireless interface (using off the shelf 802.11n does seem that efficient/cost effective, not to mention potential crosstalk problems).

 

[shadyspace]

I don't see the Wii U as the next-gen Dreamcast as the worst case scenario at all. I'd be more than happy with that as a matter of fact. And bring on the ports. I've yet to own an HD console. Arkham City? Battlefield 3? Sign me up.

 

[EDarkness]

I don't understand why more people don't consider the optimal configuration as being a Wiimote in one hand and the WiiU tablet in the other... sword and shield style. The tablet has to be designed to be held one-handed or else the whole touch screen concept of it becomes cumbersome. It gives more controls than with the nunchuck and doesn't require a stand.

I don't know, I'm not holding something that big in one hand. Especially since I'm a huge supporter of shaking the nunchuck to reload. There's just too much of a chance something is going to get broken. I'd much rather have a stand. Though, I'm not against the idea of holding the Wiipad in one hand and a remote in another. I would even be okay with trying it out. I've tried this with my iPad and wasn't really happy with how it felt.

 

[specialguy]

I don't see the Wii U as the next-gen Dreamcast as the worst case scenario at all. I'd be more than happy with that as a matter of fact. And bring on the ports. I've yet to own an HD console. Arkham City? Battlefield 3? Sign me up.

Dreamcast was probably a lot closer technically to it's gen than Wii U will be.

Heck, Dreamcast could stand toe to toe with PS2 as far as I could tell when they competed. Wii U would be the equivalent of closer to a PS1+ in that generation, from what we can tell.

 

[Winnie the Pimp]

Dreamcast was probably a lot closer technically to it's gen than Wii U will be.

Heck, Dreamcast could stand toe to toe with PS2 as far as I could tell when they competed. Wii U would be the equivalent of closer to a PS1+ in that generation, from what we can tell.

or a Wii to THIS generation

To the people saying that Nintendo doesn't want to lose as much money on each unit as MS and Sony did this gen, i simply wonder, how did they manage back in the day when they HAD the most powerful system out there a couple times in a row? I mean sure, parts got more expensive but STILL, it's gotta be somewhat comparable?

 

[EatChildren]

I don't see the Wii U as the next-gen Dreamcast as the worst case scenario at all. I'd be more than happy with that as a matter of fact. And bring on the ports. I've yet to own an HD console. Arkham City? Battlefield 3? Sign me up.

Boo . Ahh, the frustration of being a multi-platform gamer and not wanting another HD port machine.

 

[sfried]

The comments above my post beg the question: Do we still really know anything about the innards of the Wii-U? I mean, let's be realistic here...

Heck, how are we suppose to gauge what the competitors next console will be like?

 

[fabricated backlash]

Boo . Ahh, the frustration of being a multi-platform gamer and not wanting another HD port machine.

Then again, why are HD ports a problem? People go apeshit over some old PS2 and xbox games being rereleased in HD. As long as those games aren't aimed at filling a lackluster release schedule, and are priced accordingly (20 to 30 bucks, 50 to 60 for compilations) it is a non issue for me.

Hell if Nintendo wants to rerelease some GCN games on the Virtual Console emulated in HD, I'd be all over it. VC would be the only real chance of getting HD GC games on the Wii U, as each game would be emulated on a case by case basis anyway. (15 to 20 € price tag)



Ports aren't the problem, not if there is a lineup with current content, which should be a given since by the time the Wii U comes out Activision, EA and Ubisoft will have over a year of experience with dev kits and the least we should expect at launch are upports that look and run significantly better than the 360 and PS3 versions. I don't expect to be blown away by 3rd party tablet integration for the first 2 to 3 years anyway.

3rd parties are mostly creatively bankrupt when it comes to UI innovation, so I don't expect to see many innovations coming from their part anyway.

 

[AzaK]

or a Wii to THIS generation

To the people saying that Nintendo doesn't want to lose as much money on each unit as MS and Sony did this gen, i simply wonder, how did they manage back in the day when they HAD the most powerful system out there a couple times in a row? I mean sure, parts got more expensive but STILL, it's gotta be somewhat comparable?

Yeah. I just read an article on possible Wii U GPU at Beyond 3D and they listed past Nintendo system specs. Up until the Wii they were all powerful machines for their time. Just because Nintendo took an opportunity with the Wii this time, doesn't mean they won't build a relative grunt machine in Wii U. The economic situation and the fact cheap competitor consoles are out the for comparison might affect things, but i can't believe we are going to see a Wii repeat at all.

The comments above my post beg the question: Do we still really know anything about the innards of the Wii-U? I mean, let's be realistic here...

Heck, how are we suppose to gauge what the competitors next console will be like?

Speculation is all we have of course because MS or Sony could release anything from a small bump to a beast. It all depends on how much they decide to lose really. Same goes for Nintendo. They might decide to spend some of their cash and take smaller/no/negative profit to get a jump, or future proof against the competition.

 

[SolarPowered]

Boo . Ahh, the frustration of being a multi-platform gamer and not wanting another HD port machine.

It's not like smaller devs are going to flock to the nextbox and PS4 when they drop. Nintendo's solution is bound to be a cheaper machine when it comes to making disc games.

That is... unless smaller devs really go hard into the digital realm. Then we've got a problem.

The comments above my post beg the question: Do we still really know anything about the innards of the Wii-U? I mean, let's be realistic here...

Heck, how are we suppose to gauge what the competitors next console will be like?

MS has pushed for power pretty consistently for a while now. The hardware has been put together a little haphazardly, but it doesn't change the fact that they've made an effort to make powerful systems. Sony has managed to release the two of the most powerful handhelds(hell, they jumped the gun with the PSP) in this generation and the PS3 is percived as the most powerful console to date(by a narrow margin).

Their systems are bound to be pretty powerful because of the audience they cater to.

Dreamcast was probably a lot closer technically to it's gen than Wii U will be.

Heck, Dreamcast could stand toe to toe with PS2 as far as I could tell when they competed. Wii U would be the equivalent of closer to a PS1+ in that generation, from what we can tell.

That is silly, you are silly.

noo

 

[TheExplodingHead]

Well the evidence is ample that creativity in terms of User interface isn't exactly this industries forte.

Unless some studios invest in R&D specifically aimed at controller inputs, you'll continue to see half assed adaptations like on Wii, Move and Kinect.

With the standard controller the need to innovate on the UI front were useless anyway, so we're now left with an industry that doesn't value evolution on that front, but focuses on graphics and cpu performance instead.

Hell the Wii U Tablet is proof of that. IR gaming is basically dead now. I expect not a single developer will give us the option to use IR aiming on Wii U, let alone for whatever Sony uses to follow up Move on the next system. And I allready hate them for that.


But Avatar like Graphics, 4D and Blast Processing... that talk has to count for something right?

Pretty much also because nobody is heavily invested in experiments with UI/controller methods, other than Nintendo first party and even then not too far. My hunch is even the dev's who aim to improve the UI/controller interface for that port will get blasted when it under delivers. With improved research in that area the Wii generation would have been drastically different control-wise.

That being said, another example is to leave options for everyone. Where any Wii U dev can elect their own control type of choice. It might create a vacuum where almost all ports fall into the "CC line" but at least there would be games vs what we have now on Wii, no games.

I'm personally most interested in what Nintendo shows for it's online model. And if there's a situation during E3 of "we'll reveal more later"...then we know Wii U's online will probably suck...

 

[orioto]

Based on their past machines, i don't really doubt Nintendo can have a powerfull machine enough to avoid a too big difference with the next ones. Except if the tablet thing is really really expensive, but after all it's wiimote techs and a cheap tactile screen.

Now, tech can be everything, you'll still have the major problem here, and i think it's Nintendo's will and human power to output a good quantities of major ips with BIG production value. If they want to do that, and shift their resources into that, they can, for sure. But will they think it's what they need this time.

 

[Dreamwriter]

Dreamcast was probably a lot closer technically to it's gen than Wii U will be.

Heck, Dreamcast could stand toe to toe with PS2 as far as I could tell when they competed. Wii U would be the equivalent of closer to a PS1+ in that generation, from what we can tell.

But unlike the Dreamcast generation, graphically the games will be almost identical this generation, because we're passing the point where system power means more than game development budgets. Having far more power than the competition, that's just going to be potential for $10,000,000+ AAA games to look better, in an economy where developers are cutting back on their high budget games.

Dreamcast compared to XBox, most DC games were noticeably rather inferior. But Wii-U compared to PS4Box 720, most games will be almost identical. Any extra power will be wasted except for maybe 3 or 4 games per year.

 

[Nuclear Muffin]

.

Hey I just had a thought. If they included a stand like that that the Wii U pad could slot into and if it were able to be swivelled, it would be a great way to simulate those mounted guns like what you get in the arcade!

Chuck in a Wiimote charging dock that allows the remote to be slided along and we could finally get a home version of this too!

 

[mclem]

Just throwing in the worst case scenario, of course generation gaps tend to be less visible every generation.

I'd say the worst case scenario would actually be Neo Geo compared with Genesis.

 

[BurntPork]

So we're back to speculating power levels again, instead of, well, tech-talk and confirm-talk. And I thought this thread was going somewhere. High hopes I guess...

Beyond3D is now theorizing powerdraw vs. cooling & form factor from the unit they saw at E3.
Seems plausible, but I wonder if they might do some changes to accomodate some highspeed wireless interface (using off the shelf 802.11n does seem that efficient/cost effective, not to mention potential crosstalk problems).

Why are they comparing it to a netbook when it has greater volume and better cooling than a netbook? :/

 

[EatChildren]

Then again, why are HD ports a problem? People go apeshit over some old PS2 and xbox games being rereleased in HD. As long as those games aren't aimed at filling a lackluster release schedule, and are priced accordingly (20 to 30 bucks, 50 to 60 for compilations) it is a non issue for me.

Hell if Nintendo wants to rerelease some GCN games on the Virtual Console emulated in HD, I'd be all over it. VC would be the only real chance of getting HD GC games on the Wii U, as each game would be emulated on a case by case basis anyway. (15 to 20 € price tag)

I'm unique in that I like the fact the Wii is crippled in hardware and a pain in the arse to develop modern titles for as it made for a whole lot of exclusives. For me, a system is only as valuable as the games I'll buy for it. I'm stuck buying Nintendo systems because its the only place I can get Nintendo games (fair enough), but my PC is the mainstay of 'modern' hardware games. It took me until the end of last year to bother getting a PS3 because there was literally hardly any incentive. The reason I don't own an Xbox 360 is because there isn't any incentive at all.

Flaws and all, I love the fact the Wii is packed full of games I simply cant get elsewhere, either because they were built from the ground up for motion controls, or because the outdated hardware made HD ports really not all that worthwhile. The platform has tons of games I cant get anywhere else and I dig it.

I know for the Nintendo only gamer, or people who legitimately prefer Nintendo systems, getting a whole bunch of HD ports and what have you is awesome. Personally, I don't give a shit about it. Outside of the handful of multi-platform console exclusives, I wont ever buy these HD games for my Wii U. Ever. I'll be buying them on PC, like I always have.

What I worry (and predict) is that because the Wii U will sit comfortably with modern hardware upon release that the mainstay of third party support will be ports, ports and more ports from the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Yeah, Battlefield 3, Arkham City, Skyrim, bla bla, all great...if you plan on buying them for the system.

It's just a personal grievance I have, not so much an objective criticism, and an ironic situation to be in, given that the ideal market position is having a system that does allow for ports.

It's not like smaller devs are going to flock to the nextbox and PS4 when they drop. Nintendo's solution is bound to be a cheaper machine when it comes to making disc games.

That is... unless smaller devs really go hard into the digital realm. Then we've got a problem.

This is another concern I have. The future of small time indy development is through digital networks. Digital distribution is the road they will travel, for the obvious logical reasons. Until proven otherwise, I see Nintendo as nothing other than completely incompetent at building and maintaining an environment to support these developers to their best interests. We'll get some great stuff, just like we did with the Wii, but most indy developers will just flock to platforms that better support their business model, eg: Steam.

 

[Turrican3]

To the people saying that Nintendo doesn't want to lose as much money on each unit as MS and Sony did this gen, i simply wonder, how did they manage back in the day when they HAD the most powerful system out there a couple times in a row? I mean sure, parts got more expensive but STILL, it's gotta be somewhat comparable?

It's all about timing I think.
Whenever they got powerful/comparable hardware, they launched significantly later than their competitors. Hardly a coincidence, if you ask me.

This time (I mean, unless Microsoft and/or Sony make a lightning announcement+launch, something which might appear likely for the former but not so much for the latter, IMHO) they're going to be out before anybody else in the (home) nextgen race, so we're back at guessing: how much future-proof are they building the WiiU, and how much engineering efforts are Sony and Microsoft putting in their 360/PS3 successors? Will they go again for the cutting edge route or will they adopt a "safer", relatively less powerful approach to hardware?

I'm unique in that I like the fact the Wii is crippled in hardware and a pain in the arse to develop modern titles for as it made for a whole lot of exclusives. [...]

This.

It's the reason why the Wii is not only definitely my favourite platform this generation, but also the console that I've built the largest game library for (60+ games, versus about 30 combined for PS3 and 360).

That's why I hope developers will be able to create unique content for WiiU, leveraging on the characteristics of the controller instead of putting out tons of straight ports: in an ideal scenario, every platform would get something unique, not shelves filled with the same games with different boxes. But I understand publishers probably strongly prefer coding once and selling to 3/4 separate audiences. :-/

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Dreamcast was probably a lot closer technically to it's gen than Wii U will be.

Heck, Dreamcast could stand toe to toe with PS2 as far as I could tell when they competed. Wii U would be the equivalent of closer to a PS1+ in that generation, from what we can tell.

So when did Sony and MS tell you their plans for next gen? That you know how everything stacks out and compares?

And no the DC did not stand toe to toe with the PS2.

 

[GreenMonkey]

So when did Sony and MS tell you their plans for next gen? That you know how everything stacks out and compares?

And no the DC did not stand toe to toe with the PS2.

The Dreamcast looked better for a while. PS2 games were a blurry mess in comparison. Look at an early PS2 game vs games like Soul Calibur. The PS2 didn't catch up until devs got better with it.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

The Dreamcast looked better for a while. PS2 games were a blurry mess in comparison. Look at an early PS2 game vs games like Soul Calibur. The PS2 didn't catch up until devs got better with it.

You had some really good looking DC games for sure. Later games on the PS2 though we're far ahead of what was done on DC. Granted we never got late in life DC games that really pushed the hardware. I just don't see the DC being able to do something like God of War 1 or 2.

 

[bgassassin]

I really like Edarkness' idea. And the last couple of days I was thinking about the "sword and shield" think too JJConrad.

So when did Sony and MS tell you their plans for next gen? That you know how everything stacks out and compares?

And no the DC did not stand toe to toe with the PS2.

We know the PS4 and Xbox3 will blow Wii U away because they will have a Sea of Memory.

 

[StevieP]

And they will both come in a case that looks like this, too.

MS has pushed for power pretty consistently for a while now. The hardware has been put together a little haphazardly, but it doesn't change the fact that they've made an effort to make powerful systems. Sony has managed to release the two of the most powerful handhelds(hell, they jumped the gun with the PSP) in this generation and the PS3 is percived as the most powerful console to date(by a narrow margin).

Their systems are bound to be pretty powerful because of the audience they cater to.

The 360, for all intents and purposes, has more juice in every area that matters over the PS3. The Wii U will almost certainly be the least powerful console of the upcoming generation, but that doesn't mean that the other console manufacturers will deliver a product that's orders of magnitude more powerful (which is the only way to get the massive visual differences people here are dreaming about). With all the rumours swirling about Bulldozer/Fusion/Windows 8 integration and Sony's incessant money bleeding their priorities may shift a bit.

 

[bgassassin]

And they will both come in a case that looks like this, too.

The 360, for all intents and purposes, has more juice in every area that matters over the PS3. The Wii U will almost certainly be the least powerful console of the upcoming generation, but that doesn't mean that the other console manufacturers will deliver a product that's orders of magnitude more powerful (which is the only way to get the massive visual differences people here are dreaming about). With all the rumours swirling about Bulldozer/Fusion/Windows 8 integration and Sony's incessant money bleeding their priorities may shift a bit.

Haha. MS will need it if they use Bulldozer.

I agree though about the power differences in the next consoles. What I recently found interesting was that if the specs of the 7000 series are true then my "Cayman Jr" hypothesis is very comparable to the Lombok model.