Support NeoGAF

[Louis Cyphre]

Nintendo continues to put themselves in an odd position. Their whole basis is to offer unique gameplay at an affordable price. The problem is the Wii U is not in a vacuum. It still has to rely on 3rd party support. On top of that companies like Microsoft can afford to offer better (more advanced) hardware and take bigger losses.

Can you imagine if Nintendo came out with a vehicle and said we are going in a different direction. We are going to offer a vehicle that runs on electricity and it will be priced very well. The only issue is that vehicle can only do a top speed of 55mph and a distance of 20 miles before needed to be recharged.

Nintendo may continue to offer unique gameplays features but they will never be fully materialized because of two major issues, which always leads to the system never fully materializing and reaching the true potential of that unique gameplay. One being is the emphasis on cost. That means it is highly unlikely the Wii U will do much in the way of true 1080p resolution. Games are already looking to be just on par with 7 year old consoles. Add 2 gamepads and the frame rate drops in half. Kind of like Sony promoting 3D gameplay on the PS3, difference is that was an afterthought and the Wii U just came out. Hard drive space can also be an issue, but they are at least supporting external drives. The online seems to be half-baked as well. No universal reward system along with not every game supporting voice chat. The menu system is slow and sluggish but hopefully be remedied. The other issue is 3rd party support. The Wii U's main strength right now is its unique controller. To get people to buy the Wii U that support needs to be shown not only through its 1st and 2nd party titles but also 3rd party. That's where the original Wii struggled and will also likely happen again on the Wii U. Those publishers will not exploit the Wii U until they need to. So again we will get multiplat titles that aren't much different on the Wii U. So again it will be the exclusives that try and get people to buy the system.

I imagine many people like myself will hold off and see what transpires. I am not sold on the Wii U's online capabilities nor the multiplat titles being any better than current consoles. So I will wait until the unique titles grow and Nintendo fixes it's navigation menu system and see how well the actual online gaming turns out.

 

[Combichristoffersen]

It's lovely with butter on hot toast

Don't pay attention to Combichristoffersen, he obviously has a very immature palate as Vegemite is considered a delicacy in Western Australia and other uninhabitable parts of the planet

To be fair, I only tried it once, and it was on a plain slice of bread with no butter, and I probably spread too much Vegemite on the bread, so it tasted extremely salty :lol I should give it another go sometime.

 

[archnemesis]

Marmite is a lot tastier and less weird.

 

[Blades64]

Don't think so. The Cell was completely new, alien architecture to devs and really did take a lot of time to get a grasp of and get the most out of. This isn't the case with the Wii U's CPU.

The Wii U's CPU isn't new architecture but isn't it still a different architecture than what developers are used to this gen (if rumors are to be believed)? Even with the GPGPU thing? What I'm trying to say is that it maybe developers need some time to understand the architecture, even if it's not bleeding edge technology new.

 

[H_Prestige]

The Wii U's CPU isn't new architecture but isn't it still a different architecture than what developers are used to this gen (if rumors are to be believed)? Even with the GPGPU thing? What I'm trying to say is that it maybe developers need some time to understand the architecture, even if it's not bleeding edge technology new.

Isn't an OoO CPU supposed to be easier to program?

 

[Kerub]

Marmite is sooo good. I don't understand how anybody can hate that.

 

[Blades64]

Isn't an OoO CPU supposed to be easier to program?

Not sure (not a tech guy at all), but I don't think developers did(are doing) their ports with OoO in mind, which (if I'm understanding correctly) can have a negative effect on the results. Maybe this is what the Metro dev is having trouble with.

 

[EatChildren]

Take bread, lightly toast it.

Spread Vegemite, aww yeah baby.

Cheese.

Grill.

Forever in love.

 

[Twilight Princess]

It's lovely with butter on hot toast

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Vegemiteontoast_large.jpg/220px-Vegemiteontoast_large.jpg[IMG]

Don't pay attention to Combichristoffersen, he obviously has a very immature palate as Vegemite is considered a delicacy in Western Australia and other uninhabitable parts of the planet ;)[/QUOTE]
People say delicacy when it's something gross and normally wouldn't be eaten, like insects, monkey poop, etc...

 

[wiggleb0t]

Its starting very close th xbox 360 level. It will improve alot over time. Or do people in here really thing Wii U is closed to maxed out on day 1? LOL

This is spot on. It's giving off 360 vibes, a 2012 console is giving us a glimpse into the past of what's a console released 7 years ago achieved.
I'm all for games but the hardware is weak and vegemite is so good on toast!

 

[PetrCobra]

It's lovely with butter on hot toast

Don't pay attention to Combichristoffersen, he obviously has a very immature palate as Vegemite is considered a delicacy in Western Australia and other uninhabitable parts of the planet

You may know it as "Marmite" (Still awful!)

Thanks, still doesn't ring any bells.

I guess it just didn't get to the eastern Europe yet (well, technically central Europe but that doesn't sound so much like looking at the pictures of jam every day in the imported food catalogues, before eating rocks and mud for dinner) ;-)

 

[Louis Cyphre]

This is spot on. It's giving off 360 vibes, a 2012 console is giving us a glimpse into the past of what's a console released 7 years ago achieved.
I'm all for games but the hardware is weak and vegemite is so good on toast!

You could see a substantial difference between the PS2 to the launch games on the PS3. Same with the launch games of the Xbox 360 when compared to the Xbox. Same thing with the Gamecube launch games compared to later games of the N64. So if we compare Wii games to launch Wii U games then yes, there is also a substantial difference. The problem is The Wii was eclipsed already by the Xbox 360 and PS3 and the same thing is bound to happen with the Wii U once Sony and Microsoft get off their ass and release new consoles.

As I say, Nintendo continues to try and live in their own vacuum. That is fine but when they appear eager to get back 3rd party support they will once again be left behind. The Wii got away with it because it's new motion gameplay features were new to gamers and non-gamers. The Wii U doesn't really have that benefit because we are already seeing those types of gameplay elements with the Vita and to some degree the iPad and Microsoft's Surface. The Wii U is now launching ahead of Microsoft and Sony's new systems so many will simply wait and see what they bring. They tried to offer motion controls later on but this time they have a headstart on Nintendo's new direction.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Vegemite and butter on toast is one of the greatest things ever. Especially on a cold day, having a hot drink and a couple of slices of vegemite toast straight from the toaster. I don't care if my GF is offering me sex, that shit comes first.

To be fair, I only tried it once, and it was on a plain slice of bread with no butter, and I probably spread too much Vegemite on the bread, so it tasted extremely salty :lol I should give it another go sometime.

I don't like it that much on plain bread and it is much better with butter.

 

[Neff]

Wii had advantages, but also had a setback in that its tech was only fractionally superior to its immediate predecessor.

Wii U has the unique advantage of being able to showcase Nintendo IPs with substantially improved HD visuals for the first time. It's the first big technological boost a Nintendo console has had for over a decade. That's a big deal.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Wii had advantages, but also had a setback in that it's tech was only fractionally superior to its immediate predecessor.

Wii U has the unique advantage of being able to showcase Nintendo IPs with substantially improved HD visuals for the first time. It's the first big technological boost a Nintendo console has had for over a decade. That's a big deal.

I also think that we have reached a point where this generation of graphics is 'good enough' to a certain extent (i know that has probably been said many times before). What i mean is even if the difference between the wii U and 720/PS4 is as big as the difference between the wii and 360/PS3 i don't think it will be quite as noticeable.

 

[capitalCORN]

Fuck this marmite and vegemite talk. Branston pickle is what kings eat.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

Ports and games will get better as developers learn the workings of the Wii U.

Currently, we have ports of games that were designed for the 360 architecture and the ports were rushed, obviously.

Developers have engines that are specialized for the platforms they release on. Even multiplatform engines are made to take advantage of specific hardware found on specific consoles. There's nothing understood about the Wii U yet. Devs haven't had the time to fine tune the engines to run on Wii U. Give it some time, and you'll definitely see games look better and better on Wii U.

The biggest thing that needs to be done is to get more devs utilizing the GPGPU function the Wii U is capable of. We've heard of the slow RAM and CPU, but we've also heard that indie dev saying that the architecture is efficient and when used correctly will give some nice visuals. NOBODY is using the architecture correctly right now on ports. It's impossible to adjust the code and functions of the engine is such a short time frame.

Remember when the PS3 finally got Madden on the system and it ran at 30FPS instead of 60 for like 2 years. It was doom and gloom for the PS3 and then we got the Killzone and Uncharted series that showed that the system wasn't weak at the time, it just had different hardware that required a different approach than the 360.

Games will get better visually. Devs just need time to do what they do. Nintendo needs to come correct as well with their games. Retro Studios should be the guys pushing the envelope and trying to take full advantage of the hardware to show people what this system is capable of.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Observation:

Every single piece of Nintendo hardware since the beginning has not been flatly superior to its competition at the time. Every 3rd party has always dealt with Nintendo's hardware having some notable problems, ironically enough usually in some area of raw performance.

The NES was not as powerful as the Sega Master System in some ways, nor the PC Engine. The SNES was weak compared to the Mega Drive / Genesis in CPU speed. The N64 had nice visual effects compared to the PS1, but often seemed weaker in geometry and games tended to have lower frame rate targets compared to optimized PS1 games. The Gamecube was nice, but GC games often felt geometry starved compared to PS2 games and Xbox 1 games and limited in textures due to the storage medium.

It's kind of a myth that there was a golden age when Nintendo was just awesome as measured by raw hardware power, and 3rd parties loved them, etc. In truth, Nintendo was always the market leader up to a point, combined with past policies trying to control what games 3rd parties released on various platforms.

The Wii was the most extreme version of Nintendo's philosophy, where they entirely avoided competing in the same hardware range as anyone else at the time. No matter what their PR claims with Wii U, the hardware seems to go back in the direction of their old behavior - which still results in something nice in some respects, but apparently weaker in others. A lot of people are still spreading the meme of "Nintendo is overcharging for 7 year old hardware!" including here on GAF, because, you know, stuff like the gamepad is free.

At the end of the day, Nintendo places different priorities than other companies competing in the arena for a certain market of enthusiast gamer dudes. How that philosophy will continue to interact with the current landscape is up for debate.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Ports and games will get better as developers learn the workings of the Wii U.

Currently, we have ports of games that were designed for the 360 architecture and the ports were rushed, obviously.

Developers have engines that are specialized for the platforms they release on. Even multiplatform engines are made to take advantage of specific hardware found on specific consoles. There's nothing understood about the Wii U yet. Devs haven't had the time to fine tune the engines to run on Wii U. Give it some time, and you'll definitely see games look better and better on Wii U.

The biggest thing that needs to be done is to get more devs utilizing the GPGPU function the Wii U is capable of. We've heard of the slow RAM and CPU, but we've also heard that indie dev saying that the architecture is efficient and when used correctly will give some nice visuals. NOBODY is using the architecture correctly right now on ports. It's impossible to adjust the code and functions of the engine is such a short time frame.

Remember when the PS3 finally got Madden on the system and it ran at 30FPS instead of 60 for like 2 years. It was doom and gloom for the PS3 and then we got the Killzone and Uncharted series that showed that the system wasn't weak at the time, it just had different hardware that required a different approach than the 360.

Games will get better visually. Devs just need time to do what they do. Nintendo needs to come correct as well with their games. Retro Studios should be the guys pushing the envelope and trying to take full advantage of the hardware to show people what this system is capable of.

it's never been a question of, "can they..." but a question of "will they..."

As in, will they bother giving the WiiU the kind of support that brings out its strengths? Potential is only tapped by those willing to put their best developers and budgets towards the task.

How many outside of Nintendo do we expect such honest and strong efforts? Therein lies the question.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Observation:

Every single piece of Nintendo hardware since the beginning has not been flatly superior to its competition at the time. Every 3rd party has always dealt with Nintendo's hardware having some notable problems, ironically enough usually in some area of raw performance.

The NES was not as powerful as the Sega Master System in some ways, nor the PC Engine. The SNES was weak compared to the Mega Drive / Genesis in CPU speed. The N64 had nice visual effects compared to the PS1, but often seemed weaker in geometry and games tended to have lower frame rate targets compared to optimized PS1 games. The Gamecube was nice, but GC games often felt geometry starved compared to PS2 games and Xbox 1 games and limited in textures due to the storage medium.

It's kind of a myth that there was a golden age when Nintendo was just awesome as measured by raw hardware power, and 3rd parties loved them, etc. In truth, Nintendo was always the market leader up to a point, combined with past policies trying to control what games 3rd parties released on various platforms.

The Wii was the most extreme version of Nintendo's philosophy, where they entirely avoided competing in the same hardware range as anyone else at the time. No matter what their PR claims with Wii U, the hardware seems to go back in the direction of their old behavior - which still results in something nice in some respects, but apparently weaker in others. A lot of people are still spreading the meme of "Nintendo is overcharging for 7 year old hardware!" including here on GAF, because, you know, stuff like the gamepad is free.

At the end of the day, Nintendo places different priorities than other companies competing in the arena for a certain market of enthusiast gamer dudes. How that philosophy will continue to interact with the current landscape is up for debate.

We live in a much different world today and Nintendo is trying harder than ever to be unique. Trouble is Nintendo doesn't have the clout to dictate to publishers how to make games. I agree with a lot of what you said but I feel once again Nintendo will do well based solely on their own games and will not recapture that lost audience that have moved on to other platforms to play the majority of other games published by 3rd party.

 

[H_Prestige]

Observation:

Every single piece of Nintendo hardware since the beginning has not been flatly superior to its competition at the time. Every 3rd party has always dealt with Nintendo's hardware having some notable problems, ironically enough usually in some area of raw performance.

The NES was not as powerful as the Sega Master System in some ways, nor the PC Engine. The SNES was weak compared to the Mega Drive / Genesis in CPU speed. The N64 had nice visual effects compared to the PS1, but often seemed weaker in geometry and games tended to have lower frame rate targets compared to optimized PS1 games. The Gamecube was nice, but GC games often felt geometry starved compared to PS2 games and Xbox 1 games and limited in textures due to the storage medium.

It's kind of a myth that there was a golden age when Nintendo was just awesome as measured by raw hardware power, and 3rd parties loved them, etc. In truth, Nintendo was always the market leader up to a point, combined with past policies trying to control what games 3rd parties released on various platforms.

The Wii was the most extreme version of Nintendo's philosophy, where they entirely avoided competing in the same hardware range as anyone else at the time. No matter what their PR claims with Wii U, the hardware seems to go back in the direction of their old behavior - which still results in something nice in some respects, but apparently weaker in others. A lot of people are still spreading the meme of "Nintendo is overcharging for 7 year old hardware!" including here on GAF, because, you know, stuff like the gamepad is free.

At the end of the day, Nintendo places different priorities than other companies competing in the arena for a certain market of enthusiast gamer dudes. How that philosophy will continue to interact with the current landscape is up for debate.

Observation #1:

Nintendo was never a generation behind until the Wii and Wii U. They always released contemporary hardware.

Obersvation #2:

You're still trying to rewrite history.

 

[LeleSocho]

The N64 had nice visual effects compared to the PS1, but often seemed weaker in geometry and games tended to have lower frame rate targets compared to optimized PS1 games.

WAT?
the only thing where ps1 beasted n64 was textures, everything else was superior

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Gamcube games definitely did not felt geometry starved compared to PS2 games, that's just PS2 having a bunch of Silent Hills. Just Look at the GCN RE games.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Observation:

Every single piece of Nintendo hardware since the beginning has not been flatly superior to its competition at the time. Every 3rd party has always dealt with Nintendo's hardware having some notable problems, ironically enough usually in some area of raw performance.

The NES was not as powerful as the Sega Master System in some ways, nor the PC Engine. The SNES was weak compared to the Mega Drive / Genesis in CPU speed. The N64 had nice visual effects compared to the PS1, but often seemed weaker in geometry and games tended to have lower frame rate targets compared to optimized PS1 games. The Gamecube was nice, but GC games often felt geometry starved compared to PS2 games and Xbox 1 games and limited in textures due to the storage medium.

I can't really agree with this at all. The NES and SNES were both more powerful than the respective sega consoles of that era. The 64 is a weird case because it was just so different to the PS1, they both had advantages in different areas but it's hard to call one superior. The GC was clearly more powerful than the PS2 and at least comparable to the xbox.

Even if what you are saying was true having slightly weaker hardware isn't the same as being a whole generation behind. Before the wii every single gen since the NES nintendo had made the most powerful hardware of the main competitors or close to it and every gen nintendo produced the best looking games.

I'm not saying they haven't always taken a conservative approach but things have certainly changed.

 

[lightchris]

Not sure (not a tech guy at all), but I don't think developers did(are doing) their ports with OoO in mind, which (if I'm understanding correctly) can have a negative effect on the results. Maybe this is what the Metro dev is having trouble with.

I highly doubt it. Metro's developers have more of a PC history (PC CPUs support OoOE since over 15 years). Also, optimizations done for in-order processing shouldn't really hurt out-of-order CPUs.

 

[IdeaMan]

wait, we're talking about food here and no one warned me ? Food + Games = IdeaMan's sign in the air, k guys ? Food + Game = IdeaMan's paradise ><

 

[Blades64]

I highly doubt it. Metro's developers have more of a PC history (PC CPUs support OoOE since over 15 years). Also, optimizations done for in-order processing shouldn't really hurt out-of-order CPUs.

Ok cool. Makes sense.

 

[teh_pwn]

Observation #1:

Nintendo was never a generation behind until the Wii and Wii U. They always released contemporary hardware.

Obersvation #2:

You're still trying to rewrite history.

And for no apparent reason. If it's clinging to backwards compatibility for casuals, ask Sony how that worked out with PS3. BC fucks up hardware/price every time. If you want to plays older console games, get an older console. And remember when people did? Consoles were end of lifed way later than their successor was released. On the order of 4-5 years. You could get a Genesis or SNES in the late 1990s for like $20-40.

If you want a system that's capable of playing every platform for decades, get a PC.

 

[Kenka]

wait, we're talking about food here and no one warned me ? Food + Games = IdeaMan's sign in the air, k guys ? Food + Game = IdeaMan's paradise ><

Are you the one who posted that awesome pic? http://i.imgur.com/Mzxfb.jpg

edit: nope, it appears to be jaxword.

 

[LCGeek]

Observation #1:

Nintendo was never a generation behind until the Wii and Wii U. They always released contemporary hardware.

Obersvation #2:

You're still trying to rewrite history.

While those points are nice saying nintendo tech was easily the best when it never was it equally untrue. Nintendo has been high mid range tier at best. 80's -2k high end hardware always dominated more so when arcade and exotic hardware was more frequent. Outside of n64 every major console they release at best had decent tech, which is a valid point to mention.

They were never really ahead no one has been and when they are it never last for more than 18-24 months out of a generation.

Getting an older console presents tons of practical problems especially with stuff that can be found. The fact none of these companies can do emulation better than the pc is a sad reality.

 

[IdeaMan]

Are you the one who posted that awesome pic? http://i.imgur.com/Mzxfb.jpg

edit: nope, it appears to be jaxword.

Just wow ! It lacks some bagels and french patisseries, then i'll be prepared for my first night with the Wii U !

 

[H_Prestige]

And for now apparent reason. If it's clinging to backwards compatibility for casuals, ask Sony how that worked out with PS3. BC fucks up hardware/price every time. If you want to plays older console games, get an older console. And remember when people did? Consoles were end of lifed way later than their successor was released. On the order of 4-5 years. You could get a Genesis or SNES in the late 1990s for like $20-40.

Not if it's done through pure software emulation. The ps1 emulators Sony has don't come at any cost and work great.

Sony got it wrong with the ps2 BC because they had to bolt an entire ps2 inside the ps3. That didn't affect ps3 performance but it obviously impacted price.

With the Wii U I think Nintendo is downclocking the chips to effectively become the Wii hardware, which puts limits on what kind of what kind of architecture they can use and how fast to clock the chips. So I guess that's technically hardware BC.

While those points are nice saying nintendo tech was easily the best when it never was it equally untrue. Nintendo has been high mid range tier at best. 80's -2k high end hardware always dominated more so when arcade and exotic hardware was more frequent. Outside of n64 every major console they release at best had decent tech, which is a valid point to mention.

They were never really ahead no one has been and when they are it never last for more than 18-24 months out of a generation.

I didn't say they were the best (although I guess you could make the case for the GC). But they were always on par. They were never really behind, i.e. they weren't introducing the n64 while Sony was selling ps2's.

 

[teh_pwn]

With the Wii U I think Nintendo is downclocking the chips to effectively become the Wii hardware, which puts limits on what kind of what kind of architecture they can use and how fast to clock the chips. So I guess that's technically hardware BC.

Which is crazy. I'm out of the loop, but isn't it PowerPC based? That shit is old. Intel's x86 runs circles around it, and to a lesser extent ARM but for cheaper.

Around 2002 the age of increasing CPU clock frequencies to get better performance ended and execution engine optimization was needed. That's around the time that Apple ditched PowerPC, and a few years later Sony.

 

[LCGeek]

I didn't say they were the best (although I guess you could make the case for the GC). But they were always on par. They were never really behind, i.e. they weren't introducing the n64 while Sony was selling ps2's.

My bigger point is that they were rarely ahead and at best a few times have been on par.

n64 is a wash while it was 3d king granted you didn't consider pc or arcade hardware in 2d a neogeo and saturn owned what it or psx could do in 2d games. GC was just a efficient beast it didn't have the features or raw power of an xbox. Nintendo engineering has been shot away for bad balance not even amateurs buildings pcs would go for.

 

[Waaghals]

wouldn't EA be in charge of deciding whether or not they should port crysis to the wii u?

No, because Crytek is a part of the EA partners program, not owned by EA.

as far as the "the engine is running beautifully but we are not porting the game" comment is concerned, these people are trying to license the engine they are making. Won't do that by saying it won't run well on a system.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

I can't really agree with this at all. The NES and SNES were both more powerful than the respective sega consoles of that era. The 64 is a weird case because it was just so different to the PS1, they both had advantages in different areas but it's hard to call one superior. The GC was clearly more powerful than the PS2 and at least comparable to the xbox.

Even if what you are saying was true having slightly weaker hardware isn't the same as being a whole generation behind. Before the wii every single gen since the NES nintendo had made the most powerful hardware of the main competitors or close to it and every gen nintendo produced the best looking games.

I'm not saying they haven't always taken a conservative approach but things have certainly changed.

Not true. EA games for example did not play nearly as well on the SNES as they did on the Genesis. I know this from experience which is why I bought a Genesis to go along with my SNES just to play the NHL games properly. Year after year the games played smoothly on the Genesis and played like crap on the SNES. Other games like Street Fighter were excellent on the SNES though.

 

[H_Prestige]

My bigger point is that they were rarely ahead and at best a few times have been on par.

n64 is a wash while it was 3d king granted you didn't consider pc or arcade hardware in 2d a neogeo and saturn owned what it or psx could do in 2d games. GC was just a efficient beast it didn't have the features or raw power of an xbox. Nintendo engineering has been shot away for bad balance not even amateurs buildings pcs would go for.

I don't see how we're in disagreement. They have six home consoles total.

NES, SNES, and N64 were on par. GC was ahead of the ps2. Wii and Wii U are behind. So they've been "a few times" on par, once ahead, and twice behind. The latter being their current trend.

 

[AzaK]

It's lovely with butter on hot toast

Don't pay attention to Combichristoffersen, he obviously has a very immature palate as Vegemite is considered a delicacy in Western Australia and other uninhabitable parts of the planet

God I am hungry now!

Marmite is a lot tastier and less weird.

We're still out of marmite throughout the whole country (since the earthquake). It's madness.


Oh, and Wii U is underpowered, on par, or better.

 

[H_Prestige]

Which is crazy. I'm out of the loop, but isn't it PowerPC based? That shit is old. Intel's x86 runs circles around it, and to a lesser extent ARM but for cheaper.

Around 2002 the age of increasing CPU clock frequencies to get better performance ended and execution engine optimization was needed. That's around the time that Apple ditched PowerPC, and a few years later Sony.

Yeah, it's a triple core PPC that has Broadway features built in.

 

[Meelow]

I don't see how we're in disagreement. They have six home consoles total.

NES, SNES, and N64 were on par. GC was ahead of the ps2. Wii and Wii U are behind. So they've been "a few times" on par, once ahead, and twice behind. The latter being their current trend.

Nobody expects the Wii U to be more powerful then the PS4/720 since the Wii U is releasing a year+ sooner, if the PS4 or 720 released first then the Wii U would probably been on par or a little bit better.

Personally though I think Microsoft made a huge mistake not releasing the 720 in 2011 when they should of, or at least this year.

 

[PBY]

Nobody expects the Wii U to be more powerful then the PS4/720 since the Wii U is releasing a year+ sooner, if the PS4 or 720 released first then the Wii U would probably been on par or a little bit better.

Personally though I think Microsoft made a huge mistake not releasing the 720 in 2011 when they should of, or at least this year.

What? Timing has nothing to do with it. WiiU launched SEVEN years after the 360 and were debating which one is stronger. C'mon man.

 

[Meelow]

What? Timing has nothing to do with it. WiiU launched SEVEN years after the 360 and were debating which one is stronger. C'mon man.

We know the GPU is stronger, we know it has more ram, the only thing we really don't know is the CPU, it's also possible the PS4/720 CPU to be in the same situation as the Wii U CPU, sure they will probably be better but I don't think they will be much better CPU wise, but that's my opinion of course I could be wrong.

Also isn't the CPU OoO? Or am I thinking of something else?

 

[Dictator93]

We know the GPU is stronger, we know it has more ram, the only thing we really don't know is the CPU, it's also possible the PS4/720 CPU to be in the same situation as the Wii U CPU, sure they will probably be better but I don't think they will be much better CPU wise, but that's my opinion of course I could be wrong.

Also isn't the CPU OoO? Or am I thinking of something else?

You mean their CPUs will be worse than the current console CPUs? (aka wii U). I doubt it...

Also, we do not actually know how powerful with Wii U GPU is... if anything its problem with fill rates in Black ops 2 lead to some disappointing conclusions

 

[Sid]

We know the GPU is stronger, we know it has more ram, the only thing we really don't know is the CPU, it's also possible the PS4/720 CPU to be in the same situation as the Wii U CPU, sure they will probably be better but I don't think they will be much better CPU wise, but that's my opinion of course I could be wrong.

Also isn't the CPU OoO? Or am I thinking of something else?

At nearly half the speed with 1 gb for games

 

[Piggus]

The PS4/720 CPUs will be better. A LOT better. It's silly to think that they would bottleneck their systems that much.

You'll see.

 

[ColdBlooder]

You gotta love how he tried to divert the conversation onto the ps3/ps4 and totally
ignored your question about Wii U.

You gotta love that devs might run into the same issue with PS4.

Problem with the CPU comes from switching from CPU centric console to GPU centric console. I know unbelievable, huh?

And if the APU rumors are true, Sony is going with the same approach.

I don´t care if 3rd partys max out the Wii U. I know Nintendo will. Heck Galaxy 1/2 look AMAZING imo. Their unmatched artstyle is incredible. Cool what Nintendo can do with a 12 gflop GPU. Imagine what they can do with 30-40x the GPU power (Compared to Wii). Even with the CPU not being "on par" with CELL/Xenon.

And again, PS4/720 CPUs might not be aswell, seeing that in some aspect, those CPUS can still smoke an i7 in vers specialised tasks.

Ofcourse i7 is a far better gegeral purpose CPU though

 

[PBY]

The PS4/720 CPUs will be better. A LOT better. It's silly to think that they would bottleneck their systems that much.

You'll see.

Lol how could anyone think other wise

 

[Meelow]

You mean their CPUs will be worse than the current console CPUs? (aka wii U). I doubt it...

Also, we do not actually know how powerful with Wii U GPU is... if anything its problem with fill rates in Black ops 2 lead to some disappointing conclusions

I can see Sony and Microsoft putting much more effort to the GPU and less on the CPU like Nintendo did, Sony made the Cell which is very powerful but it didn't help them at all.

Like I said in the COD thread, I really wouldn't look at COD a game that doesn't focus on graphics very much to judge the Wii U GPU.

 

[Durante]

Nobody expects the Wii U to be more powerful then the PS4/720 since the Wii U is releasing a year+ sooner, if the PS4 or 720 released first then the Wii U would probably been on par or a little bit better.

Seriously? This expectation only makes sense if you expect Sony and MS to build 35 Watt systems as well.

They won't.

 

[Meelow]

Seriously? This expectation only makes sense if you expect Sony and MS to build 35 Watt systems as well.

They won't.

I'm talking about Nintendo would of been in a different situation since they would know the specs of the 720, unlike now were Nintendo doesn't know the specs so they really don't know were to push the Wii U specs.

Sometimes it's worse to launch 3rd but it can help too, like Sony and Microsoft have a much better chance since they know what they should do.