gundamkyoukai
Member
Err, no it wouldn't. It would cost about the same as a 360.
But then Nintendo would have not gotten in such a small case and low TDP.
Which seem to matter allot to them .
Err, no it wouldn't. It would cost about the same as a 360.
Err, no it wouldn't. It would cost about the same as a 360.
Can I ask a quick couple questions? It's all I really care about:
Can the Wii U play everything that the PS3/360 can play at least as well or better (provided the devs don't have technical issues like the launch software has been showing)? I don't understand the whole "43% slower than PS3" RAM thing, so I just want this simple answer.
Not with 4x the RAM and a "Blu Ray" drive, no.
2010 it could have easily released at this price though.
fair enough.
I suppose the question would be: did they port those lowfi games from 360/PS3 over to Wii? If not, why not? Because nextGen being a mirror image of lastGen seems fairly likely now.
Until proven otherwise, no it cannot.
I think the poster above was saying that nintendo should have released a HD machine in 2006 if it wanted to keep third parties on board. Not literally the Wii U spec for spec. I'd imagine such a machine would look a lot like the 360 core, which launched at 299.
No. It seems abundantly clear at this point that it's possible to imagine application scenarios where Wii U won't keep up with PS3 or 360. And the other way around.Can I ask a quick couple questions? It's all I really care about:
Can the Wii U play everything that the PS3/360 can play at least as well or better (provided the devs don't have technical issues like the launch software has been showing)? I don't understand the whole "43% slower than PS3" RAM thing, so I just want this simple answer.
Yes.Other question: Can the slow OS be fixed with an update?
No but you do get a banana.
Err, no it wouldn't. It would cost about the same as a 360.
Until proven otherwise, no it cannot.
I think the poster above was saying that nintendo should have released a HD machine in 2006 if it wanted to keep third parties on board. Not literally the Wii U spec for spec. I'd imagine such a machine would look a lot like the 360 core, which launched at 299.
That's basically what precipitated the whole IW->Respawn Studios thing.
Except it's different, the Wii U will have at least 10 million install base when the PS4/720 releases and the Wii U is much closer to PS4/720's power then the Wii was with the PS3/360. And we know the Wii U is getting much more indie support then the Wii was and Nintendo grew much bigger in Japan then when they entered last gen with the Wii and is releasing Mario, Monster Hunter, and DQX day 1 which will help the Wii U.
But that's my opinion.
Except it's different, the Wii U will have at least 10 million install base when the PS4/720 releases and the Wii U is much closer to PS4/720's power then the Wii was with the PS3/360. And we know the Wii U is getting much more indie support then the Wii was and Nintendo grew much bigger in Japan then when they entered last gen with the Wii and is releasing Mario, Monster Hunter, and DQX day 1 which will help the Wii U.
But that's my opinion.
Where are you getting the idea that the WiiU will be closer to Orbis/720 than the Wii was to PS3 / 360?
Are you certain Wii U will sell 10 million in a year?
Yes, I agree and that's why I can't think of a leap as big as from PS2 to PS3 between the PS3 and its successor.I just don't see a scenario where Sony charges $500-$600 again. I'm pretty sure they learned that lesson. Not in this economy.
If you're referring to the SquareEnix tech demo, I don't remember another one, the leap seems pretty small compared to "last gen" and it's not pretty likely that anything else like an enemy AI ran in the background.As for MS and Sony building anything less than "a hell of a gaming machine"...if you can't agree that the tech demos and games we've already seen in the works for "nextGen platforms" don't suggest there's extremely nice hardware under the hood of said platforms and that the clear expectation is that those games will run on the 720/PS4, we have nothing left to discuss.
Can I ask a quick couple questions? It's all I really care about:
Can the Wii U play everything that the PS3/360 can play at least as well or better (provided the devs don't have technical issues like the launch software has been showing)? I don't understand the whole "43% slower than PS3" RAM thing, so I just want this simple answer.
Other question: Can the slow OS be fixed with an update?
Because it's pretty obvious, the PS3/360 was at least 20x more powerful then the Wii, we know the PS4/720 won't be 20x more powerful then the Wii U.
Also if Sony and Microsoft manged that the price would be too much, especially if Microsoft wants the Xbox to be the media box in the house and come with Kinect 2.
10 million is just my bull numbers, if it's it not 10 million then it should be close to it.
it's crazy how much more random gaf posters know about designing system architectures than engineers at IBM or Nintendo.
Are you certain Wii U will sell 10 million in a year?
That's good reasoning.
Because it's pretty obvious, the PS3/360 was at least 20x more powerful then the Wii, we know the PS4/720 won't be 20x more powerful then the Wii U.
Also if Sony and Microsoft manged that the price would be too much, especially if Microsoft wants the Xbox to be the media box in the house and come with Kinect 2.
10 million is just my bull numbers, if it's it not 10 million then it should be close to it.
If your being sarcastic I'm sorry I didn't do a detailed comment but that's what I think and am seeing with how things are going now.
I'm out of this thread.
We saw what would happen in that case... Its called gamecube
No I was serious. Those were good points
And people got upset when I called this thing the Krillin of the next generation consoles.
Nintendo are jokers. They had all the momentum behind them with the Wii, and they were getting a years head start over the competition. They could have easily provided a more powerful console and still have been successful. No one was asking them to bankrupt themselves and pull a PS3, but something substantial over what we have currently wouldn't have been impossible for them. They're just locking out third party support again with this poorly thought out approach. I don't believe this nonsense of "Nintendo have always focused more on gameplay than horsepower" either. Yeah, with the Wii maybe. N64 and Gamecube were nothing to scoff at, and neither was the DS. I don't see how this bullshit rhetoric from one console generation has all of a sudden become the expected norm with them.
The GC had really small capacity discs and a strange controller. The ps2 was also just too dominant and this was before multiplatform development really took off. Not really the same situation.
If MS was able to take advantage of ps3's launch failure this gen and establish the Xbox as the console to develop games on, then Nintendo would have had a shot as well if it released a 360 type of machine. Would it have sold insane and made as much money like the Wii did? No. But long term, do those few years of money printing really matter if Nintendo had to sacrifice the core gamer and third parties, and the casual consumers either aren't interested anymore or have moved onto other things?
Compared to what came before it which was the GBA. It was a significant enough leap for a handheld and also provided new ways for gameplay.DS was nothing to scoff at? Compared to the "sexyness" of PSP?
You and many others are suggesting that MS will build a hell of a gaming machine?
MS seems to be pretty comfortable with their console positioned as a media center. Personally I don't think that the next XBox will be a high end piece of hardware, more like a soundless mediocre Windows 8 device.
.
Compared to what came before it which was the GBA. It was a significant enough leap for a handheld and also provided new ways for gameplay.[/QUOTE]
Which is the case for wiiu too...
it's crazy how much more random gaf posters know about designing system architectures than engineers at IBM or Nintendo.
For those asking about Nintendo "cheaping out", do you remember this?
http://www.1up.com/news/epic-games-cost-microsoft-billion
Microsoft doubled the RAM in their console in 2005 and that cost them a billion (I assume in projected LTD installed base)
Xbox and ps2 shared a ton of multiplats and gc was always excluded
For those asking about Nintendo "cheaping out", do you remember this?
http://www.1up.com/news/epic-games-cost-microsoft-billion
Microsoft doubled the RAM in their console in 2005 and that cost them a billion (I assume in projected LTD installed base)
I guess to avoid to make a costly console is one key to not sink your revenue.
The difference being Wii isn't the only console on the market like GBA was the only handheld. It's not as if there's a newbie console coming. Playstation is established and so is Xbox now. They also have the majority third party support behind them. Fact is, Nintendo has never skimped on hardware until the Wii and Wii U.Which is the case for wiiu too...
People need to remember to never trust IGN any more when it comes to hardware matters. They were wrong on the 3DS and they were way off on this one, too.
Can I ask a quick couple questions? It's all I really care about:
Can the Wii U play everything that the PS3/360 can play at least as well or better (provided the devs don't have technical issues like the launch software has been showing)? I don't understand the whole "43% slower than PS3" RAM thing, so I just want this simple answer.
Other question: Can the slow OS be fixed with an update?
I doubt DICE has a say in that
Back in the day, there was quite a controversy that never ended, over the "weak" SNES hardware. The SNES was given a slow CPU (hmm... familiar). By the standards of its day, this made it very difficult for the SNES to perform well in popular genres of games. Shooters, fast arcade action with lots of sprites - these games were usually downscaled on SNES.
In my opinion the bold part is the real problem when it comes to judge about a consoles hardware. Given the fact he only designs levels and characters.I mean the Battlefield designer sounds like he has no first hand knowledge of WiiU hardware or it's limitations implying he's not involved in anything running on it, of course that doesn't mean anything for rest of DICE but Battlefield is the flagship FB title. Of course the decision is not up to DICE, I think it's more telling of where EA's priorities are if that's the case.
This is all pure speculation based on a tweet though!
The difference being Wii isn't the only console on the market like GBA was the only handheld. It's not as if there's a newbie console coming. Playstation is established and so is Xbox now. They also have the majority third party support behind them. Fact is, Nintendo has never skimped on hardware until the Wii and Wii U.
In my opinion the bold part is the real problem when it comes to judge about a consoles hardware. Given the fact he only designs levels and characters.
In my opinion the bold part is the real problem when it comes to judge about a consoles hardware. Given the fact he only designs levels and characters.
keep thinking that son
this is the new mantra for nintendo fans? hoping that the next xbox or ps3 wont be powerfull?