-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
report: Wii HD in 2011 with 'significant' graphical overhaul
- Thread starter camineet
- Start date
- Status
UltimaKilo
Gold Member
I don't understand why this is worth "reporting". Executives at Nintendo have been following the philosophy for some time now, of not pushing technology. Nintendo had a lackadaisical (or non-existent) online push on the NGC, they left optical discs out of the N64, and the Wii lacked HD support because not enough people had HD capable sets at the time. So obviously the company's next console will be HD.
I would bet on a large amount of Flash storage for the next console, with slightly better graphical output than a 360, keeping to the "three dvd cases" look. 2011 sounds right with IBM & AMD on schedule for 22nm.
But I'm just talking nonsense, because I'm not a Nintendo exec!
I would bet on a large amount of Flash storage for the next console, with slightly better graphical output than a 360, keeping to the "three dvd cases" look. 2011 sounds right with IBM & AMD on schedule for 22nm.
But I'm just talking nonsense, because I'm not a Nintendo exec!
Oh hey, I do not doubt Nintendo will leave out things/standards with Wii HD / Wii 2 that will be part of other next-gen consoles.
*manycore CPU with 10 or more cores (nintendo might goto multicore/2 cores)
*next generation online services (nintendo might catch upto current PSN)
*1080p (nintendo might only support 720p but i hope they'll do full HD)
*4-8 GB RAM (nintendo might have 512MB to 1 GB)
22nm being ready in time for Nintendo's next console would be nice. It might allow a RV770 class GPU to be very small, very cheap, very cool, very power efficient, whereas 32nm might not. Just an uninformed guess.
*manycore CPU with 10 or more cores (nintendo might goto multicore/2 cores)
*next generation online services (nintendo might catch upto current PSN)
*1080p (nintendo might only support 720p but i hope they'll do full HD)
*4-8 GB RAM (nintendo might have 512MB to 1 GB)
22nm being ready in time for Nintendo's next console would be nice. It might allow a RV770 class GPU to be very small, very cheap, very cool, very power efficient, whereas 32nm might not. Just an uninformed guess.
Yeah, I was curious about that too.FF_VIII said:
Of course, it sounds like the other guys aregonna wait longer to put out the next batch of consoles, but surely 2011 will cut it close.
I was one of the people who thought Wii would be a huge hit. I can't help but think that people will just get tired of the damn thing before Wii HD catches on. I don't know... I guess it depends on what they do hardware/software wise to appeal to the mass consumer. Nintendo is a tricky little creature.
infinityBCRT
Member
I wonder what Nintendo will do. Will they make their system match the current gen? Or will they try to make something more powerful?
I don't think anyone has looked at what the cost to make an Xbox is recently but based on a lawsuit where some 360s were lost in shipping, its probably around $100. Microsoft has spent so much time getting their console manufacturing process cheaper that if they pull a Nintendo and make their next system a more powerful version of the 360 (lets say they put 2-4 valhalla chips in the 360 at a higher clock speed + bluray) I think they will be able to get a $249.99 price point without losing money, and still have a 1080p capable console.
I think no matter what Nintendo does, they are in a good position. Microsoft has course corrected and is making money now despite their mistakes (RROD, early Japan strategy). But Sony is in a tough spot now. Seems like that cell architecture is just too expensive to manufacture. They might need to scrap it and go with something new next gen (which would mean the PS4 would not run PS3 games in all likelyhood).
I don't think anyone has looked at what the cost to make an Xbox is recently but based on a lawsuit where some 360s were lost in shipping, its probably around $100. Microsoft has spent so much time getting their console manufacturing process cheaper that if they pull a Nintendo and make their next system a more powerful version of the 360 (lets say they put 2-4 valhalla chips in the 360 at a higher clock speed + bluray) I think they will be able to get a $249.99 price point without losing money, and still have a 1080p capable console.
I think no matter what Nintendo does, they are in a good position. Microsoft has course corrected and is making money now despite their mistakes (RROD, early Japan strategy). But Sony is in a tough spot now. Seems like that cell architecture is just too expensive to manufacture. They might need to scrap it and go with something new next gen (which would mean the PS4 would not run PS3 games in all likelyhood).
The point is with wii games they don't have to spend anywhere NEAR the kind of money to make an HD game, they sell a million copies of that, that's a whole lot more going into Nintendo's pockets than selling a million copies of something like Gears, it's clear that people Nintendo is catering to don't care about HD gaming, so why would they want to lose that profit margin? They can crank out MORE wii-play type games at a WAY smaller budget in a SHORTER time frame than they can crank out another epic Zelda title in HD, it makes no business sense for Nintendo to try to match MS and Sony, because MS and Sony are on the losing end, most people are looking for something novel, not the same games but better-looking which appeal more to hardcore gamers. Even if they can make a more technologically advanced console for cheap it's not in their best interest to do so. >:|
infinityBCRT
Member
Thats possible. In 2006 according to an X-bit labs article it cost them $125 to manufacture a Bluray drive. But the CPU/GPU cost them $220 combined.blu said:
I just look at the fact that Sony can't make the PS2 CPU/GPU cheap enough to make that worth putting in the PS3 as an indication with what may be going on with the cost of the CPU/GPU of the PS3.
Shin Johnpv
Member
All I can say is a GIANT LOL at people who think the next gen consoles are going to be 10 core monsters with 4 - 8 gigs of ram.
So from 512MB to 4GB? That's a reasonable jump to you? Seriously.camineet said:
Consoles don't really need a whole lot of RAM. The only reason we're at 512 now is because of the ridiculous interfaces they have. Unless consoles are going to equivalent to home PCs with everything they can do next go-around, they definitely do not need four fucking gigabytes of RAM. Hell, even my beast of a computer only has 4GB, and I'm constantly running tons of shit underneath whatever game I'm playing.
Again, a dedicated gaming machine does not need nearly as much RAM as a home PC that does so much more.
Same thing could technically be said for multicore processors, but a good developer can take advantage of multiple cores to do multiple things in game, so.
hokahey said:
hokahey said:
What are you talking about? You obviously have no idea. Xbox 360 is cheaper than the Wii right now and you don't need an HDTV to enjoy it. Buy the console then buy a game, it's not hard to grasp. It doesn't matter "how long" it took to get to that price point, they're at that price now and that's the only thing that matters. Most worthwhile technology always comes out at a higher price then drops over time, everyone knows this.
Nintendo can stay cost effective and still produce a much better machine (while making money from day one) than what they've done this time around. The amount they pull in on each Wii is ridiculous.
Mithos said:
Bullshit. I own a PS3 and a 360 without an HDTV and they look great. HDTV or no HDTV they're still a large leap from last generation games.
TheOneGuy said:
That would be the exact same percentage jump we had from Xbox to 360. There's nothing shocking about that. Whether we get anywhere near that is another story. I seriously doubt any console ends up with more than 2GB. Anyone thinking we get much more than that might be living in a fantasy land, imo.
I have to laugh when I see numbers like 8GB thrown around. Not happening, not even close.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Well you can hook up a PC...Log4Girlz said:
I understand what you are saying, but what you get out of an HD console is greatly diminished if you don't have an HDTV set. I know that an HDTV isn't required and that a 360 is still an excellent choice for someone who only has an SD set (PS3 less so due to price and the effective loss of BR) but it is a consideration.
Shin Johnpv
Member
camineet said:
No I wouldn't have. Because I figured this gen would be around 256 - 384 megs, 512 is a little higher than I expected but its not 4 fucking gigs.
You have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to video game hardware, so for you to sit there and say if not 4 - 8 gigs then why bother, is stupid. Games today, like the best looking high end PC games today DO NOT need 4 gig machines.
Honestly next gen you're probably going to see 1 - 2 gigs. Considering how much money Sony and MS have lost this gen too, I would err on the lower side of things. Specially Sony considering they blew everything they made with the PS and PS2 in 1 year with the PS3, expect a much more conservative system from them.
If the hardware guys were really smart they would develop chips that were much more efficient at what they do instead of throwing brute force at them. That was the big difference between the Chips in the GC and the ones in the Xbox. The stuff in the GC was all about doing things very efficiently, the Nvidia chip in the xbox was all about just throwing as much raw power at something and hoping it works.
You can't just go well from X system to Y system was a jump of B % there for next gen should have C amount of ram. It doesn't scale that way. You reach a point were more ram doesn't really make that much of a difference. You can take a Pentium 100 and put 10 gigs of ram on it, it's not going to perform like a Core 2.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Well by the time I get and HDTV the console and a whole bunch of games will have dropped in price, so I'm not so much missing out as delaying until I can get maximum enjoyment for minimum price. Plus I have a PC that can push 360 level visuals at SD resolutions if need be.dallow_bg said:
I will only say that because of the success of Wii, Sony and Microsoft may not develop true next-gen consoles that are a generational leap beyond 360/PS3 in CPU, GPU and amount of RAM, leading to next-gen XB3,PS4 having 1-2 GB instead of 4-8 GB.
Why would i even mention 8 GB? That's 16x, the leap in main system memory from PS1 (2MB) to PS2 (32MB) and from PS2 to PS3. Granted, Xbox to Xbox 360 was only 8x. I'd say 8x would be the most likely if Sony & Microsoft do even the minimum to get a full generational leap over current gen.
Why would i even mention 8 GB? That's 16x, the leap in main system memory from PS1 (2MB) to PS2 (32MB) and from PS2 to PS3. Granted, Xbox to Xbox 360 was only 8x. I'd say 8x would be the most likely if Sony & Microsoft do even the minimum to get a full generational leap over current gen.
Shin Johnpv
Member
camineet said:
Just stop. You don't know what you're talking about. You're looking at numbers and have no idea about anything else. Please on behalf of everyone else just stop.
Again
Shin Johnpv said:
Okay look, I realize that just increasing the RAM might not scale the performance up with the current architectures, or enhanced versions of the current architectures. Yet don't tell me that if XB3/PS3 have new, next-gen architectures that they could not benifit from that much RAM.
While PS4 might only need 1-2 GB, I see that a few people refuse to think that a large amount of RAM like 4-8 GB would not be useful. That's just nuts. Developers would love 8 GB in a console, make use of it, and wish there was more.
While PS4 might only need 1-2 GB, I see that a few people refuse to think that a large amount of RAM like 4-8 GB would not be useful. That's just nuts. Developers would love 8 GB in a console, make use of it, and wish there was more.
Black-Wind
Member
I thought he was refering to cost-to-make-games at first but I guess I was wrong (he didn't jump in and say that . . .)Foil said:
Anyway . . . has the dev cost changed alot for the HD twins at this point?
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
Log4Girlz said:
That's just the price of the core console really, there's quite a bit of long term added cost to the system, from the price of games to the energy consumption, and I'm not even counting other things like what TV or sound system you're using, and how relevant or not those added assets really are to a console's value and fun propositions.
It comes down to the library and what consoles have the best library for certain audiences. While one audience may like a certain type of game and think one console is full of gems for him, there is a whole lot of people out there that perceive gaming differently and would never touch those games you consider gems, so it's really a matter of perspective.
If one system has far less games for one's tastes and instead has a lot of games for a hardcore audience that she's not part of, then it won't matter so much that it is a little less expensive, you will still want the console that is right for your tastes, we saw that last generation.
Besides, the controller is still the same, the likely hood of one person being the sole recipient of an Xbox 360, especially with this emphasis on online multiplayer is still sky high. If the whole family were involved with the product, the pressure on the expense would be considerably dissolved.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
the 360 has 6 logical cores - is that unnecessary too?TheOneGuy said:
can i ask a few posters in this thread to adhere to some elementary adult netizen's etiquette? 'you don't know shit', 'it ain't so because i say so' does not make for a productive discussion. if you think somebody's opinion is way off - correct them, don't play a 'more knowledgeable than thou' role.
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
Kittonwy said:
It's not just profit margin, it's safety. To this day people still don't quite understand why Nintendo is the way it is. With this crisis, which BTW we're just at the tip of, many companies that have made huge investments to expand their businesses into the HD era, not only with added development costs but with a larger employee base will literally go bankrupt.
A company like Nintendo can leverage their expenses more, they can cut expenses and not have to layoff employees, since they outsource many of their activities and their software is strictly prioritized to use little resources. That can maximize profits on one hand, but the number one priority is to survive.
By keeping it safe Nintendo will come out of a crisis, or even a crash as we've had, as triumphant. The reason why this is so important to them is because Yamauchi knew that when a major crisis happens and you survive, you're to first the pick up the market again. Not only do you survive, but once the crisis has washed away much of the industry clean, you can come out of it as a much more dominant force, being ready for that position is priority number one.
Anyone can make the arguement that consoles won't need more than 512MB RAM, that 360/PS3 currently have. Why improve anything when what we have now is good enough? Seriously? :lol Okay now knowing things *are* going to advance to a greater or lesser degree, at what point do we draw the line were more RAM won't help. 1GB? 2GB? 3GB?
vanguardian1
poor, homeless and tasteless
Neo C. said:
Seriously. At this rate, we'll have to ask what version of Windows/Linux will Xbox720/PS4 run when they release, and if they'll have constant security updates.
Shin Johnpv
Member
camineet said:
No one is saying that. What people are saying is that you can't just say the difference between the Xbox and the 360 was 16x therefor, for the Xbox 720 to be "next gen" it needs to have 4 - 8 gigs of ram. Things just don't scale that way. This has already been explained and you're basically ignoring it.
You have to realize that unlike a PC, a video game console doesn't have an OS to run, its not running all this other shit in the background at the same time you're playing a game that a PC does. A console doesn't need the same requirements that a PC does for that reason.
Plus theres this stupid concept of it needs to be X powerful to be next gen. It'll be next gen because it'll be a new console. They don't have to meet some imaginary level of "power" to be so.
Next gen games will install/read from disc and stream internet data all at the same time. It's also worth noting that even if they invented a 12X speed bluray drive , running at maximum speed would still take 10 seconds to full the ram on a ps3/xbox 360. So my guess is that disc based games will come with 5 minute installations that take up say 8 gigabytes of space on a giant hard drive and cutscenes/voices/music and other such space filling junk would stream off the disc whereas actual game data like physics/ai/graphics would stream from the hard drive. Given that I figure the most you'll see for ram is 4 times what's in the current wave, so 2 gigs, of that 25% will likely be reserved for a much more demanding OS 25% will also be reserved to cache future loads, first stuff would stream from HDD and BD into that 25% and as it's needed in game it'd fill up the other 1 gig remaining. Next gen systems could easily shove 8 gigs of ram in there if they wanted to but it'd be DDR2 level ram to keep things cheap , that'd be wasteful and pointless so instead you'll see DDR4 or DDR5.
I don't think it's at all unfeasible to expect 12-24 core processors in the higher end stuff either, I mean the i7 that just launched is technically 8 cores , how much harder could it be with a few nanometers shaved off to stick 2 or 3 of those together to get 16 or 24 cores 3 years from now ?
I think it's pretty safe to say Microsoft is gonna keep the 360 going for as long as they can , the question is whether they'll redesign it to be smaller and have a flash based HDD or if they'll keep it physically identical but reduce power consumption and internalize the power supply.
Nintendo likely has their next hand held and home console already planned out, it's a debate over a time really, given the economy right now and nintendo's massive success 2011 might actually be early. They'll release true successor to the DS and Wii for no more then whatever those system cost at their launch and the tech inside the consoles will only be advanced to the point that nintendo can still turn a profit from day 1. I forsee a broadband based console roughly equal to the 360 with an HD menu and a subscription based content system- you pay X $ per month to download games from the nintendo store or you can go buy physical discs or pay a different subscription rate to "rent" titles indefinetly from the nintendo store. Wii games would be fully backwards compatible obviously.
I don't think it's at all unfeasible to expect 12-24 core processors in the higher end stuff either, I mean the i7 that just launched is technically 8 cores , how much harder could it be with a few nanometers shaved off to stick 2 or 3 of those together to get 16 or 24 cores 3 years from now ?
I think it's pretty safe to say Microsoft is gonna keep the 360 going for as long as they can , the question is whether they'll redesign it to be smaller and have a flash based HDD or if they'll keep it physically identical but reduce power consumption and internalize the power supply.
Nintendo likely has their next hand held and home console already planned out, it's a debate over a time really, given the economy right now and nintendo's massive success 2011 might actually be early. They'll release true successor to the DS and Wii for no more then whatever those system cost at their launch and the tech inside the consoles will only be advanced to the point that nintendo can still turn a profit from day 1. I forsee a broadband based console roughly equal to the 360 with an HD menu and a subscription based content system- you pay X $ per month to download games from the nintendo store or you can go buy physical discs or pay a different subscription rate to "rent" titles indefinetly from the nintendo store. Wii games would be fully backwards compatible obviously.
Shin Johnpv
Member
Pachinko said:
No it's technically 4 cores, and 8 threads, there is a difference.
- Status