Support NeoGAF

[klier]

Who care about what the PS4 and Xbox 3 are going to do? I'd be perfectly fine if they we're more powerful than the WiiU.

I mean, I only want to know how much more powerful the WiiU will be compared to the Wii.
I've just finished the second temple in Zelda SS, and those graphics already blew me away with the art Nintendo offers (and yes, I own both PS3 and 360 too, with games like Uncharted 3 and Gears 3). I simply cannot imagine Zelda on WiiU, with much more power than Wii.

 

[DCKing]

but i would assume going with 1t-sram helps with backwards compatability

Depends on where it's used, but any fast RAM (like EDRAM) would do I think.

 

[BurntPork]

30 Wiis duct taped together.

 

[orioto]

It bears repeating.

NES (1983) ≈ Master System (1985, was a bit better than NES)
SNES (1990) ≥ Genesis/Mega Drive (1988)
N64 (1996) ≥ PSX/Saturn (1994,1995)
PS2 (2000) ≤ GameCube (2001) ≤ Xbox (also 2001 and cost $100 more than Cube)
Wii (2006) < Xbox 360 (2005) &#8776; PS3 (2006)

Long and short of it is: with the singular exception of the Wii, whenever Nintendo has been late to release in a generation, their hardware is comparable to or better than the competition. Whenever they've been early (Famicom/NES), they were not royally outclassed by the competition until the next generation began.

The Wii was a gamble that bucked previous Nintendo trends and it paid off for several years. The question is--is this the approach they will take again? Hopefully the 3rd party influence they're supposedly listening to tells them not to be too tight on the wallet strings for the horsepower.

EDIT: DCKing: The 3DS may not be "cutting edge" from a raw specs perspective but you can practically count on one hand the number of commercial devices using an autostereoscopic screen.

Totally true except you forget the nds, and there is a clear pattern since this one. Nintendo now assume a "less tech, more innovation" clearly in their talks. They also clearly want to avoid changing their assets and the cost associated with next gen the longer they can. But i hope in fact that WiiU is just powerfull enough to avoid big gap with competitors and i think it's really possible if the tablet thing isn't too expensive in itself.

 

[Emitan]

The public don't care a year in advance, and they certainly don't care about specs.

When Nintendo comes out at E3 with Mario, Smash Bros, et al, that's when the public will care. They could reveal GPU facts until they're blue in the face, but games are the hypebuilders, not the specs.

They're not showing Smash Bros at E3. Unless it's just a CG trailer like last time.

 

[klier]

I can imagine two scenarios: Nintendo showing something (whether it be a game preview, some info) shortly after the holiday season, say, January and February, and following it up with more tid bits, game announcements etc through march-may, OR Nintendo show absolutely nothing until E3.

Those are the only two possible scenarios, haha

 

[Fourth Storm]

What I want to know is this: If developers have (had?) dev kits with some 3-core 3.5ish ghz cpu, will there be compatibility problems if the chip runs below that clock even if it is somewhat better overall?

It seems as if this chip has been in design for a while specifically for WiiU's needs. Why have dev kits that don't even ballpark its functionality (ie Xenon clones)? No, it's running around 3.5 Ghz, if we're gonna put any stock in those specs rumors. IBM and Nintendo made it work at an acceptable power draw just as they have in the past. Of course, the chips are gonna be stripped down some, but stuff like the eDRAM and OOE will stay.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[A Black Falcon]

Too many people in this thread seem to have started gaming THIS gen because I've been seeing this comment way too often. The Wii IS AN EXCEPTION. EVERY other Nintendo console has been technologically comparable to the competition. People need to stop claiming otherwise and ignoring nearly 20+ years of counterexamples

Technically comparable? Before the Wii, excepting the SNES (which is less powerful than the Neo-Geo), every Nintendo console has, at the time of its release, been the most powerful console available, period. And that one exception is to a console whose games cost $200 each, not exactly mass market.

(The Xbox launched a few days before the Gamecube in the US and is more powerful, but the GC had launched several months earlier in Japan, while the US was the Xbox's first region.)

So yeah, the Wii is very much an exception, before then Nintendo always released powerful systems. The question is, what will the WiiU end up being...

 

[bgassassin]

but i would assume going with 1t-sram helps with backwards compatability

It also supposedly has the density advantage that eDRAM has while maintaining the speed advantage that SRAM has.

 

[FyreWulff]

Totally true except you forget the nds, and there is a clear pattern since this one. Nintendo now assume a "less tech, more innovation" clearly in their talks. They also clearly want to avoid changing their assets and the cost associated with next gen the longer they can. But i hope in fact that WiiU is just powerfull enough to avoid big gap with competitors and i think it's really possible if the tablet thing isn't too expensive in itself.

Nintendo has never had the most powerful handheld in any generation. They make the one they feel meets the middle of the road for performance and price. I think the Game Gear and everything else onwards (and some of the 3DS misstep) showed that people care about games, not specs in that market.

 

[Fourth Storm]

It also supposedly has the density advantage that eDRAM has while maintaining the speed advantage that SRAM has.

Nintendo oughta just embed all the GCN's 27 MB of 1TSRAM on the GPU of WiiU. Would help for perfect BC and make a somewhat beastly card at the same time.

 

[Emitan]

Nintendo oughta just embed all the GCN's 27 MB of 1TSRAM on the GPU of WiiU. Would help for perfect BC and make a somewhat beastly card at the same time.

But it doesn't have BCN BC.

 

[Fourth Storm]

But it doesn't have BCN BC.

For Wii, I meant. And there's the chance Nintendo go for GDDR3 for the main RAM pool as well.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Who care about what the PS4 and Xbox 3 are going to do? I'd be perfectly fine if they we're more powerful than the WiiU.

I mean, I only want to know how much more powerful the WiiU will be compared to the Wii.
I've just finished the second temple in Zelda SS, and those graphics already blew me away with the art Nintendo offers (and yes, I own both PS3 and 360 too, with games like Uncharted 3 and Gears 3). I simply cannot imagine Zelda on WiiU, with much more power than Wii.

Well to be fair, I'm sure there are lots of people who are speculating whether or not the Wii-U will be as strong as the PS4/720 because they might want to use it as their primary console, and possibly only console. The Wii was relegated to secondary console status for most people and it's looking like the wii-u might be the same, but a respectable second more so than the wii.

I only owned and N64 and a Gamecube and was proud of it

 

[bgassassin]

What I want to know is this: If developers have (had?) dev kits with some 3-core 3.5ish ghz cpu, will there be compatibility problems if the chip runs below that clock even if it is somewhat better overall?

It seems as if this chip has been in design for a while specifically for WiiU's needs. Why have dev kits that don't even ballpark its functionality (ie Xenon clones)? No, it's running around 3.5 Ghz, if we're gonna put any stock in those specs rumors. IBM and Nintendo made it work at an acceptable power draw just as they have in the past. Of course, the chips are gonna be stripped down some, but stuff like the eDRAM and OOE will stay.

Just my 2 cents...

I agree with you. After learning that Xenon was supposed to be a 3.5Ghz OoO chip and combining that with what lherre said, I think that's what Nintendo is pursuing.

I also believe they haven't determined the clock speeds yet because they are still waiting to find out which process the GPU will use.

 

[FyreWulff]

But it doesn't have BCN BC.

Yep, and it shouldn't be suprising since Nintendo's never done more than 1 generation BC anyway.


GBA: GB bc
DS: GBA bc, dropped GB/GBC
3DS: DS bc, dropped GBA

GCN BC was a tiny possibility in the first place. Gamestop's already gotten rid of their GCN section around here as soon as Nintendo started shipping the GC-less Wiis.

 

[BurntPork]

What I want to know is this: If developers have (had?) dev kits with some 3-core 3.5ish ghz cpu, will there be compatibility problems if the chip runs below that clock even if it is somewhat better overall?

It seems as if this chip has been in design for a while specifically for WiiU's needs. Why have dev kits that don't even ballpark its functionality (ie Xenon clones)? No, it's running around 3.5 Ghz, if we're gonna put any stock in those specs rumors. IBM and Nintendo made it work at an acceptable power draw just as they have in the past. Of course, the chips are gonna be stripped down some, but stuff like the eDRAM and OOE will stay.

Just my 2 cents...

There's absolutely no reason to believe that the CPU was ever clocked that high. The rumors all just said that the CPU was faster (except IGN, but considering how utterly clueless they are they probably just automatically associated "faster" with "more GHz").

 

[A Black Falcon]

It bears repeating.

NES (1983) &#8776; Master System (1985, was a bit better than NES)
SNES (1990) &#8805; Genesis/Mega Drive (1988)
N64 (1996) &#8805; PSX/Saturn (1994,1995)
PS2 (2000) &#8804; GameCube (2001) &#8804; Xbox (also 2001 and cost $100 more than Cube)
Wii (2006) < Xbox 360 (2005) &#8776; PS3 (2006)

Long and short of it is: with the singular exception of the Wii, whenever Nintendo has been late to release in a generation, their hardware is comparable to or better than the competition. Whenever they've been early (Famicom/NES), they were not royally outclassed by the competition until the next generation began.

The Wii was a gamble that bucked previous Nintendo trends and it paid off for several years. The question is--is this the approach they will take again? Hopefully the 3rd party influence they're supposedly listening to tells them not to be too tight on the wallet strings for the horsepower.

EDIT: DCKing: The 3DS may not be "cutting edge" from a raw specs perspective but you can practically count on one hand the number of commercial devices using an autostereoscopic screen.

Your comparison marks there are questionable...

NES/SMS: The SMS is more powerful than the NES. Sure, the difference is not huge, but the SMS clearly has better graphics. The only advantage the NES has is better audio, but with the (Japan-only) FM sound addon the SMS catches up. Of course though, the SMS also is 2 1/2 years newer.

SNES: While weaker than the Neo-Geo, the SNES is more powerful than the Genesis and Turbografx. The only advantage the other systems have CPU speed (both have a CPU clock speed twice that of the SNES), but the SNES is ahead in everything else, and the SNES could have addon chips to help with the CPU speed issue. It's clear which is more powerful overall. Of course, a Genesis plus 32X probably does beat the SNES, but that's an addon, and a late addon too (released in 1994, after several next-gen consoles...).

N64: The N64 is more powerful than Playstation or Saturn, no "&#8805;" about it. It's got more RAM, a three times faster CPU, more hardware effects, etc, etc. It's not close.

GC: Yes, weaker than Xbox but above PS2, but the GC is a lot closer to the Xbox than the PS2 or Dreamcast are to either of them, which is worth noting.

Nintendo has never had the most powerful handheld in any generation. They make the one they feel meets the middle of the road for performance and price. I think the Game Gear and everything else onwards (and some of the 3DS misstep) showed that people care about games, not specs in that market.

Well, sort of. Nintendo handhelds are usually the most powerful at the time of their release, but then get exceeded not long after and ed up as one of the weaker systems of the generation, but easily win anyway because of the great games they have. It is indeed a good case of how games matter more than hardware.

But yeah, the Game Boy was the most powerful handheld at the time of its release, because it was the first new handheld since the Microvision... but yeah, as soon as another one came out (the Atari Lynx, later in the same year as the GB, '89 -- and given that the Lynx has hardware scaling and rotation, you could argue it's more powerful than the GG too...), Nintendo fell behind. This pattern has repeated -- you could perhaps argue that the GBC was more powerful than the Wonderswan or Neo Geo Pocket because it had color (even if otherwise it was probably weaker), but both had color within six to nine months too.

The GBA is the closest Nintendo has to a most powerful handheld, because it didn't have much strong competition and released a few years ahead of more powerful competition. I don't know offhand if the N-Gage is more powerful than GBA or not (it probably is, yes?), but that was several years later. The only other "competition" was the Wonderswan Color, a last-gen system, and some very shortlived systems (that were more powerful than the GBA but no one bought). Then the DS was released just slightly ahead of the PSP, and the 3DS longer ahead of the Vita.

However, you are absolutely correct of course the Nintendo always aims for a perfect balance of price, performance, and before the 3DS, battery life, with their handhelds. Those factors, and the great game libraries, explain their success over many more powerful systems.

 

[bgassassin]

Nintendo oughta just embed all the GCN's 27 MB of 1TSRAM on the GPU of WiiU. Would help for perfect BC and make a somewhat beastly card at the same time.

The foundation is definitely there since the 24MB in Wii was a secondary die like the eDRAM on Xenos (minus the changes with that eDRAM).

There's absolutely no reason to believe that the CPU was ever clocked that high. The rumors all just said that the CPU was faster (except IGN, but considering how utterly clueless they are they probably just automatically associated "faster" with "more GHz").

The early leaks said it was clocked higher than Xenon.

 

[BurntPork]

The foundation is definitely there since the 24MB in Wii was a secondary die like the eDRAM on Xenos (minus the changes with that eDRAM).



The early leaks said it was clocked higher than Xenon.

Did they? And I going senile less than two months before I turn 20?

 

[bgassassin]

Did they? And I going senile less than two months before I turn 20?

Haha. Nah it's just easy to forget.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/04/25/project-cafe-system-specs-leaked/1

The CPU for Project Cafe is said to be a custom-made triple-core IBM PowerPC chipset which is fundamentally similar to the Xbox 360's CPU, albeit with faster clock speeds.

 

[ReyVGM]

The SMS was considerably more powerful than the NES. The reason why most NES games look better than a lot of SMS games is because of the special mappers inside every Nintendo cartridge which let the games do stuff the hardware itself couldn't do.

Basically, it's exactly what the Super FX chip did for SNES games.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

To comment on the Handheld stuff, while the DS and 3DS are not some powerhouses, they very much follow Nintendo's handheld generational leaps.

GB/GBC compare to the NES
GBA compared to the SNES
DS compared to the N64
3DS compared to the GC/Wii

They followed their pattern with the DS and 3DS, though in some ways the 3DS is a bigger jump than previous.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

Too many people in this thread seem to have started gaming THIS gen because I've been seeing this comment way too often. The Wii IS AN EXCEPTION. EVERY other Nintendo console has been technologically comparable to the competition. People need to stop claiming otherwise and ignoring nearly 20+ years of counterexamples

That was old Nintendo, not Iwata's Nintendo.

Things have changed and Wii U seems to be following that "new"* low cost/big profits interface focused philosophy. Based on rumors, which is all we have publicly available at the moment, it seems that Wii U is going to be underpowered to a certain degree compared to the competition (unless Nintendo changes their mind, which I doubt). Personally I don't think the difference is going to be as drastic this time due to diminishing returns, HD support and the fact that it shares similar standards to the other two; all that means ports will be possible this time (for the most part), even if they don't look as good or are downgraded in some way.

* I say "new" because even old Nintendo has always been pretty concerned about profits. They usually had comparable or better hardware than the competition at the cost of launching last (one and half to two years later) and even then they always seemed to make sacrifices, like a slow CPU during the NES/SNES era or no CD during the N64 days.

Yeah, but their handhelds have followed consistent jumps in power. The PSP was especially powerful because that's what Sony was going for last gen. But the DS was a full gen over the GBC and the 3DS is a full gen over the DS, and certainly as close to the Vita as...say the DC was to the Xbox (which I consider the same gen. Saturn was from the N64/PS1 gen)

Their handhelds have followed consistent jumps in power only in relation to previous Nintendo handhelds, but they all were behind the tech/power curve and it showed when you compared them to the competition. I could understand it before as they wanted to provide a cheap handheld with long battery life, but things have changed now with the 3DS which is still almost a generation behind the competition tech-wise yet its battery life is pretty damn low.

BTW the difference between 3DS and Vita seems quite bigger than DC to Xbox, it's just that the 3DS is at a tech point that is good enough, unlike say the DS which produced pretty bad looking 3D graphics.

 

[Lonely1]

That was old Nintendo, not Iwata's Nintendo.

Things have changed and Wii U seems to be following that "new"* low cost/big profits interface focused philosophy. Based on rumors, which is all we have publicly available at the moment, it seems that Wii U is going to be underpowered to a certain degree compared to the competition (unless Nintendo changes their mind, which I doubt). Personally I don't think the difference is going to be as drastic this time due to diminishing returns, HD support and the fact that it shares similar standards to the other two; all that means ports will be possible this time (for the most part), even if they don't look as good or are downgraded in some way.

* I say "new" because even old Nintendo has always been pretty concerned about profits. They usually had comparable or better hardware than the competition at the cost of launching last (one and half to two years later) and even then they always seemed to make sacrifices, like a slow CPU during the NES/SNES era or no CD during the N64 days.



Their handhelds have followed consistent jumps in power only in relation to previous Nintendo handhelds, but they all were behind the tech/power curve and it showed when you compared them to the competition. I could understand it before as they wanted to provide a cheap handheld with long battery life, but things have changed now with the 3DS which is still almost a generation behind the competition tech-wise yet its battery life is pretty damn low.

BTW the difference between 3DS and Vita seems quite bigger than DC to Xbox, it's just that the 3DS is at a tech point that is good enough, unlike say the DS which produced pretty bad looking 3D graphics.

This doesn't make much sense. Nintendo doesn't have a fetish for underpowered hardware. I believe the Wii U is going to be as powerful as the form factor and maturity manufacturing process at the time will allow (for a reasonable price).

The 3DS is consistent with the handheld technology at the development time of release. Nintendo couldn't have released a Handheld comparable to Vita for holidays 2010 (original projected launch) in the current projected power envelope. They could have opted for higher resolution instead of 3D, though. Remember, the higher end handheld devices had at best a SGX540, Tegra II was delayed and Apple own premium devices had a SGX535, which is "9 times slower" than half a Vita. Even now, as per the rumors, Sony was aiming for the PSP-Go form factor, but had to go for a device larger than the PSP-1000 due to heat and battery life concerns. The 3DS is smaller than the DSi.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

Fill in the blank:

Xbox 360 and PS3 games commonly could not be ported to Wii because the system was __a Nintendo System__

Not true.

Pretty much every time a third party has not released a game on a Nintendo system has been because:

1) It was an exclusive to other system (you don't see that too often these days).
2) It didn't fit the demographics of the system according the publisher.
3) Technical/economical reasons, like not having a CD in the case of the N64 or having an archaic architecture (and being underpowered as hell too) as is the case with the Wii.

The job of publishers and developers is to make money, period.

The GC, a system that had an installed base several times lower than the Wii was getting ports left and right and it could have gotten more if it wasn't for the 1.5GBs mini discs, for example, GTA. All those third party titles the GC got were competing with Nintendo on their own system, so don't you think that, if it had been possible, third parties would have loved to port their games to the Wii and get a slice of the pie?

 

[NinjaTehFish]

Ok for pure speculation, Could a fourth core be adapted and added to form the graphics unit?
If the source architecture is designed for four cores would this approach be cost effective compared to retooling to 3 cores and adapting another set of graphics hardware?


Ive said before i could see Nintendo using an APU like design. Does the above make any sense?

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

This doesn't make much sense. Nintendo doesn't have a fetish for underpowered hardware. I believe the Wii U is going to be as powerful as the form factor and maturity manufacturing process at the time will allow (for a reasonable price).

Of course they don't have a fetish for underpowered hardware, but they do have a philosophy of big profits on hardware, nowdays more than ever before.

If they could release a more advanced system without having to pay the extra manufacturing costs they would do it, who wouldn't?

 

[Lonely1]

Of course they don't have a fetish for underpowered hardware, but they do have a philosophy of big profits on hardware, nowdays more than ever before.

If they could release a more advanced system without having to pay the extra manufacturing costs they would do it, who wouldn't?

Not if its bigger, less reliable, power hungry and noisy.

 

[Luckyman]

Too many people in this thread seem to have started gaming THIS gen because I've been seeing this comment way too often. The Wii IS AN EXCEPTION. EVERY other Nintendo console has been technologically comparable to the competition. People need to stop claiming otherwise and ignoring nearly 20+ years of counterexamples

This is hilarious and sad argument. You dont really get Iwata do you?

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

Ok for pure speculation, Could a fourth core be adapted and added to form the graphics unit?
If the source architecture is designed for four cores would this approach be cost effective compared to retooling to 3 cores and adapting another set of graphics hardware?


Ive said before i could see Nintendo using an APU like design. Does the above make any sense?

Nintendo likes simplicity when it comes to hardware design, with the only exception being the N64.

I don't think they would do it.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

Not if its bigger, less reliable, power hungry and noisy.

Are we talking about home consoles or handhelds?

If we are talking home consoles, being bigger and more power hungry is a fair trade off if it means having a system fast enough to get all the big titles and a better experience. A more powerful system doesn't automatically mean that it is going to be substantially less reliable or noisy. The PS2 had a higher failure rate than the GC even though it was less powerful and the DC is one of noisiest systems ever despite being the slowest last gen machine.

If we are talking about handhelds you may have a point when it comes to being bigger or more power hungry, but as always is all about the trade-offs and making the right decisions to make the better system.

 

[BurntPork]

Are we talking about home consoles or handhelds?

If we are talking home consoles, being bigger and more power hungry is a fair trade off if it means having a system fast enough to get all the big titles and a better experience. A more powerful system doesn't automatically mean that it is going to be substantially less reliable or noisy. The PS2 had a higher failure rate than the GC even though it was less powerful and the DC is one of noisiest systems ever despite being the slowest last gen machine.

If we are talking about handhelds you may have a point when it comes to being bigger or more power hungry, but as always is all about the trade-offs and making the right decisions to make the better system.

So, would you buy a console the size of a mid-tower?

 

[BlackNMild2k1]

Not true.

Pretty much every time a third party has not released a game on a Nintendo system has been because:

1) It was an exclusive to other system (you don't see that too often these days).
2) It didn't fit the demographics of the system according the publisher. Why...? Um...because it's a Nintendo system and Nintendo's are for teh kiddies amiright!!
3) Technical/economical reasons, like not having a CD in the case of the N64 or having an archaic architectured (and being underpowered as hell too) as is the case with the Wii.

#2 seems true to me. Even though the response you quoted wasn't even 100% serious to begin with.

 

[Deguello]

The job of publishers and developers is to make money, period.

So how did they fare this generation?

 

[wsippel]

Of course they don't have a fetish for underpowered hardware, but they do have a philosophy of big profits on hardware, nowdays more than ever before.

Not anymore, no.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

So, would you buy a console the size of a mid-tower?

I don't know you, but it's quite possible you have a PC at home and, among other things, that's a gaming machine the size of a mid-tower

A more serious reply? When I say "bigger" I mean "console bigger", which means it's not the size of your refrigerator.

But yes, if there's a point in the future when consoles are the size of a mid-tower I'll probably buy them for the games. I don't expect consoles that big though.

 

[RedSwirl]

Not true.

Pretty much every time a third party has not released a game on a Nintendo system has been because:

1) It was an exclusive to other system (you don't see that too often these days).
2) It didn't fit the demographics of the system according the publisher.
3) Technical/economical reasons, like not having a CD in the case of the N64 or having an archaic architecture (and being underpowered as hell too) as is the case with the Wii.

The job of publishers and developers is to make money, period.

The GC, a system that had an installed base several times lower than the Wii was getting ports left and right and it could have gotten more if it wasn't for the 1.5GBs mini discs, for example, GTA. All those third party titles the GC got were competing with Nintendo on their own system, so don't you think that, if it had been possible, third parties would have loved to port their games to the Wii and get a slice of the pie?

#2 is a big problem Nintendo has explicitly been trying to rid themselves of, and has become somewhat of a vicious cycle. The demographic of their consoles to a great extent is shaped BY the lack of third party games which further discourages them appearing on Nintendo systems.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

#2 seems true to me. Even though the response you quoted wasn't even 100% serious to begin with.

Demographics change depending on the system.

The Wii for example has a lot of new gamers which are more interested in more casual experiences and there are many games out there that wouldn't fit that description which means the actual audience for that game may not be big enough to warrant a port from scratch to the system.

I know people like to victimize themselves, but things are not as black or white as they are usually portrayed on gaming forums; factors vary from game to game and decisions are made based on profitability and spectations.

And sometimes publishers are just wrong, but that's another story.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

So how did they fare this generation?

The big ones have made tons of money; the small ones, it varies.

Overall the big fishes are getting bigger and the small fishes are getting eaten or finding new waters, just like in all the other big industries.

Many were unprepared for the changes and challenges this gen required and the economic crysis hasn't helped one bit.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

#2 is a big problem Nintendo has explicitly been trying to rid themselves of, and has become somewhat of a vicious cycle. The demographic of their consoles to a great extent is shaped BY the lack of third party games which further discourages them appearing on Nintendo systems.

I agree and it has become a big problem for Nintendo.

But it's not the only reason; the Wii demographic is quite problematic for traditional developers and publishers and Nintendo's trying to fix that with both 3DS and Wii U.

It'll be quite interesting to see if they succeed.

 

[Lupin the Third]

I like how everyone here has ignored Luckyman's latest flamebait. Well done, thread! you're learning!

 

[Deguello]

The big ones have made tons of money; the small ones, it varies.

Overall the big fishes are getting bigger and the small fishes are getting eaten or finding new waters, just like in all the other big industries.

Many were unprepared for the changes and challenges this gen required and the economic crysis hasn't helped one bit.

I don't think they've done as well as you might think. EA is one of the "big" ones and they've lost money every single year this generation including this last year. Sony is a publisher and they've bled every single penny they've earned in video games. Square Enix has seen console titles underperform pretty badly and was buoyed by DS games that sold similar numbers and cost much less to make. Midway, a major player last gen, is dead now.

In fact the only company I know for sure made steady money this generation was Activision and that's because they have a yearly megaseller and monthly tithes from the church of WoW. Well them and Nintendo, who despite posting some recent losses, has made some rather large profits this gen.

I like how everyone here has ignored Luckyman's latest flamebait. Well done, thread! you're learning!

Well when a guy is on enough ignore lists he ends up just talking into a well and confusing the echo with a reply. And Shh you're drawing attention to it!

 

[Caramello]

Apparently DICE pitched Battlefield to Nintendo for GameCube exclusivity but nothing came of it due to Nintendo's lack of online strategy...

Oh Nintendo why do your decisions frustrate me so..

I really hope Wii U is a turning point.. Seems social gaming (meaning social media) is the next thing for Nintendo to screw up and hopefully with the Wii U having a freaking screen and being the perfect social system because of it - they do it right.

 

[MDX]

Are we talking about home consoles or handhelds?

If we are talking home consoles, being bigger and more power hungry is a fair trade off if it means having a system fast enough to get all the big titles and a better experience. A more powerful system doesn't automatically mean that it is going to be substantially less reliable or noisy.

I think your forgetting that Nintendo is a Japanese company whose HQ is in Japan.
Nintendo makes their products for locals first, and does what it can to interest customers overseas. This is why Nintendo has been designing consoles with small form factors, to please the Japanese markets.

The WiiU will probably be the first console Nintendo makes that might really cater to the western markets. As its breaking tradition with a bigger form factor. And thats because its packing some heat... so to speak. So they are going the direction of something more powerful.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Other than Nintendo, who's gonna kick ass on the Wii-U?

 

[MDX]

Haha. Nah it's just easy to forget.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/04/25/project-cafe-system-specs-leaked/1

All this means to me is that they had nothing else to compare it to.
Maybe thats what Nintendo simply put in the box for the developers?
They took an unrestrained Xbox360 XCGPU with loads of eDRAM.

How and why would you pursue Xenon with a Power7?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Other than Nintendo, who's gonna kick ass on the Wii-U?

Maybe Square-Enix will put a good Crystal Chronicles on it.

You know, like the Gamecube one.

LIKE THE GAMECUBE ONE, SQUARE.

 

[Instro]

Other than Nintendo, who's gonna kick ass on the Wii-U?

Japanese devs. At least I imagine that's where we will see the most exclusives coming from early on. Nintendo seems to have a vice grip on many of them in the handheld space, and with no PS4 in sight the WiiU could very well become the de-facto console to develop for. Dragon Quest X being multi plat Wii/WiiU plus first party stuff, ensures the console will probably do well out of the gates, and have a solid jrpg base(paving the way for Monolith, and future rpgs?). Wii U could end up being the lead platform and/or timed exclusive for some Japanese games, particularly if the PS4 comes later rather than sooner.

They've clearly rebuilt a pretty strong relationship with Capcom and SE thanks to the publishing they have done for them with MH and Dragon Quest respectively, and both are putting big support behind the 3DS so it will be interesting to see if that carries over to the WiiU.

Ubisoft seems to be doing cool things with the system as well, and they are on board very early this time so hopefully that means their first games won't be rushed shit like Red Steel. Killer Freaks looks interesting at least.

I suspect that the rest of the western studios will be looking to do some collection ports, and ports of current games, but I doubt they will make much use of of the screen outside of some minor things.

 

[MDX]

Other than Nintendo, who's gonna kick ass on the Wii-U?

Well Im always hoping for the smaller developers to bring something unique to the table(t).

We got those developers that tried on the Wii, who now will be working on a full fledge HD system:
Treyarch
High Voltage
Vanilla Ware
Monster Games Inc.
Arika
Red Fly Studio
etc


Same goes for those Wiiware developers, regardless if they stay on Wiiware or go retail.

Gaijin Games
Redlynx
Nnooo
Curve Studios
Ronimo Games
Frontier Developments
etc

And finally, we know that many major publishers or developers, put their "B" or "C" teams to cut their teeth on the Wii. Well if they progress to the WiiU, they will be progressing to a more powerful modern system. Which means their games can potentially look as good as the "A" team games even with their smaller budgets. Although, they might be used instead to come up with unique ideas and interfaces for the tablet to support major franchises. At any rate, we might see sequels to games like Zack and Wicki, Red Steel, etc.