-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wii U: Not Enough Bandwith?
- Thread starter nordique
- Start date
XtremeXpider
Member
I'm with you, and Wii U will show some enhancements, but not because "GPGPU" magic or something like that.
It depends on the day of the week, the source (website), and even who is posting the info... I think we don't know all about next gen machines yet.
StreetsAhead
Member
Probably a year or two away from its successor.
Randomizer
Member
What? Compare WiiU launch games to 360/ps3 launch games and you will see that WiiU already looks better at this stage of its life. You can't make these kind of assumptions this soon especially when they're based on rushed/bad ports and early software.
XtremeXpider
Member
I agree with some of you statement, but I think it is not good to compare launch 360 games with launch Wii U games. You must compare last generation Xbox 360 games with launch Wii U games, just like past generations.
I mean something like this:
Last Xbox1 games vs Xbox 360 launch games.
1st Course
Member
Are you for real?
This was a launch title and yet it looked better than anything we have seen before it was a real next gen game, and IMO nothing on the wii u so far looks better than it.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
well wiiu is not exotic in anyway. Neither is current gen development in general. There is no learning curve to speak of. The sort of graphical advancements we saw this generations is not going to happen with the wiiu.
And it is pretty obvious that the gap between wiiu and ps360 is very very narrow. Much more narrow than say ps2 and xbox.
And i dont see development with the budgets and talents the best of the best had on ps360.
If you dont have the talent, the money or the hardware, i just dont see games outshining the best from this gen.
XtremeXpider
Member
Most Xbox 360 launch games have better visuals (and resolution) than last Xbox1 games. Kameo, PGR3, CoD2, even multiplatform games like King Kong or Most Wanted, are games with better graphics and greater resolutions. And developers gone from uni-core x86 cpus to multi cores PowerPC cpus, the learning curve was big.
Thermodynamics alone make another Wii situation quite unlikely. What Microsoft and Sony did last gen was insane, they pushed the hardware beyond what's possible based on improved technology alone by also increasing die sizes and power consumption considerably. That's not really practicable anymore - and looking at the financial reports, one might argue that it didn't make sense back then, either.
Considering the WiiU's launch titles are late gen multiplatform PS360 titles
Your saying PGR3 an early gen title looks better than late gen multi platform PS360 titles then?
Taking into account that Need For Speed Most Wanted is one of those titles, your saying PGR3 looks better than NFSMW?
XtremeXpider
Member
But today tech (manufacturing tech and so) is more advanced than 2005 tech.
Aside resolution, PGR3 looks really great today:
How can you say there is no learning curve? With new architecture comes a learning curve, and this is very apparent with the CPU and RAM choices. As I said before, with the Wii U, I'm not expecting a jump in graphical fidelity similar to that of Xbox-->Xbox 360.
Regarding talent, Nintendo's first party developers are very talented developers. They have made beautiful games on decade-old hardware.
I don't quite keep up with budgets, so enlighten me on the budgets of, say... Gears of War 3? Compared to that of Nintendo's top titles for the Wii, like the Zeldas or 3D Marios.
I think it was said that Skyward Sword's budget reached $20million (same as Uncharted 3), but that's just conjecture on my part, so I can't really stand by it.
1st Course
Member
No, but I do think that it looks better than any Wii U game atm which is just a personal opinion of mine anyway. But that not what I tried to imply actually, what I'm basically trying to say is that the Wii U simply failed to show anything that looks like a graphical leap over what the PS3/360 is offering, unlike the 360 which showed an obvious proper next gen leap over what the PS2/GCN/Xbox was offering.
And 2005 tech is more advanced than 1999 tech. There's an envelope due to technological progress alone, but Sony and Microsoft didn't stay within that envelope, they pushed it further by not only using more modern tech, but also increasing complexity, BoM and power consumption. That isn't feasible anymore.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Exactly. PS3 destroyed all the years of profit from the psx/ps2 era
Don't see sony willing to got down that road again, and all the rumours we've been hearing bear that out
Don't see sony willing to got down that road again, and all the rumours we've been hearing bear that out
Um, direct feed screens?
You can't counter the argument that Wii U launch games are late gen 360 games. Or are you Implying that graphics didn't improve for 360 since 2005?
1st Course
Member
nah the point is that 360 launch titles were clearly superior to whatever was on the PS2/GCN/Xbox, the 360 showed a proper next gen leap at launch. The Wii U did not.
None is arguing that against the fact that Wii U offers a considerably smaller jump than xbox to 360.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
well you cant expect any such leap with the wiiu.
If there will be any leap at all. Most of it is already learnt since its not hardware specific.
If there will be any leap at all. Most of it is already learnt since its not hardware specific.
RAM size alone is a significant difference. The fact that no multipat game is using it should tell you something.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
its also very slow ram.
The key thing here though. Is that there will be no huge leaps on the wiiu.
Its not like when 360 was released and they had to come to grips with multiple core development.
Eh, Is fast enough for better textures at the least. And I would argue that more than "multi core architecture" the biggest jumps were thanks to better understanding of the GPU features sets. We would seen the same kind of leaps if the 360 has shipped with 5Ghz Single core CPU.
Its budget And talent usually tbh. If you compare visually games from ps2/Xbox/GC with Wii games, the stuff from the previous generation overall looked better. That's because those games had their 'A' teams with appropriate budgets behind them. The Wii had decent 3rd party support in the beginning and it just fell off the cliff after the first two years. That's why its important to have hardware at least in the same neighborhood of processing power as the other machines regardless of any unique user interface features.
Schnozberry
Member
Did you read the article that started this thread? The developers quoted had very few issues with Wii U memory bandwidth.
Plus there is a learning curve after spending a long generation optimizing your engine for hardware that is very CPU centric, and then having new hardware that is very GPU centric debut. It will happen with Durango and Orbis as well. The first round of games will likely not kill people dead with their fidelity, but the second and third releases from those same studios will be vast improvements.
It's between budget and hardware not able too keep up with ps360.
Since the wiiu will not have high budget games the power of the console which is almost equal to the ps360 will never shine so you'll never get anything above or maybe even on par with unch3/halo4/whatever aside those 2-3 first party titles.
money pushes graphics
no money = no graphics
and since
wiiu power ≈ ps360 power
then
wiiu game graphics = ps360 game graphics
Fourth Storm
Member
I sincerely doubt the GPU is equivalent to a 4770.
Nice posts.
I too can't imagine that ps460s will do any better graphically than PCs available at launch. Not just because of your points, and that they want to compete with WiiU on price, and they want to do it without huge losses. It's also because while they have had to rely on graphics to take market share from Nintendo over the last decade, now they have more great games and an audience ready for them.
Nintendo chose to seek a blue ocean because they had the software and R&D advantage and hardware was getting huge and hot and expensive. The others had no choice but to invest in graphics because they knew much less about games and they had a tech advantage.
Nintendo invested in games and hardware to support new game types, a risky business move even when software is your specialty because your competitors have dozens of bullet points against you and you have no guarantee people will enjoy your work. In the end, Nintendo delivered the fun and expanded an audience one way just in time before Apple and before HD, and the others expanded an audience another way just before Nintendo powered up.
Now Sony and MS have games that are reaching Mario and Link levels of popularity, and they have more of them. They have enormous marketing budgets supporting a seasoned staff, and a whole new culture of fans, and while Nintendo is my favorite software company, there is now something out there that I don't want to miss out on. Even if it's just the occasional Journey or the next Uncharted.
It feels like Sony and MS have been spending loads of money just to get some gaming legitimacy and have now evened out the playing field just as Apple starts poking around, happy to see them and Nintendo fighting amongst themselves. Games and gaming is going through a major evolution, and while the media may still be the message, the variety and sophistication of the content is making the system wars worth fighting.
TL;DR: Gaming is leveling up. Power advantages are becoming less important. Why am I writing an essay from the tub?
The "brilliance" of Nintendo is that it's not fighting with Sony and Microsoft. Well, it is, but not the battle that they want. It's taking the gamble (which didn't seem like a gamble until they completely botched the marketing) that people would want at most only two gaming systems next gen (at least for a while). Microsoft and Sony are fighting amongst themselves for the same piece of the pie- high powered games. Nintendo also wants HD, but they don't want to spend a lot of money investing in system just to get 1/3rd of the pie. They're happier with ~100% of the "other gaming experiences" pie and then whatever stragglers they get. IMO, they're betting that either Microsoft or Sony will "lose" next gen and be forced out of the market. While there's a big difference in graphical power (so to speak) between the WiiU and the other systems coming out, they'll both be outputting in HD. Games will have more effects and look a little better on the newer systems, but not several factors better.
I think that they're well positioned to attract developers that don't want to invest in next gen development yet. Or maybe they can get indie developers or smaller studios. There's even the possibility that they can attract new IPs from companies who have ideas but want to minimize the risk by having a lower budget. The problem with that is that companies could've tried that with the Wii and that most didn't. Those that did weren't met with a lot of success. There are several reasons for that, but the reasons don't really matter when developers are left with a bad taste in their mouth.
Good things CAN happen with the WiiU, but we'll see if they will. If developers grow some balls and make a great game with great marketing that makes great use of the unique features of the WiiU, I have a feeling it'll be a success. If they half ass any of those things, the game better catch on like fire because otherwise it'll bomb.
I think that they're well positioned to attract developers that don't want to invest in next gen development yet. Or maybe they can get indie developers or smaller studios. There's even the possibility that they can attract new IPs from companies who have ideas but want to minimize the risk by having a lower budget. The problem with that is that companies could've tried that with the Wii and that most didn't. Those that did weren't met with a lot of success. There are several reasons for that, but the reasons don't really matter when developers are left with a bad taste in their mouth.
Good things CAN happen with the WiiU, but we'll see if they will. If developers grow some balls and make a great game with great marketing that makes great use of the unique features of the WiiU, I have a feeling it'll be a success. If they half ass any of those things, the game better catch on like fire because otherwise it'll bomb.
Fourth Storm
Member
I wish I could share your optimism. Unfortunately there are several factors which work against Wii U capturing your 100% of "other gaming experiences." Many of these may be redundant if you've been reading these threads religiously, but bare with me.
Perhaps most important is the rumored price of Sony and MS' next gen consoles. If they launch at or around $400, the value of the Wii U is reduced considerably. Browsing the rumored specs, I believe the difference in graphics will be quite noticeable to the average consumer. Additionally, there seemed to be a considerable lack of hype surrounding the Wii U launch and with the present release drought, things are not looking up. I believe Nintendo made a mistake in showing their cards too early, although they really had no choice considering the Wii's situation. When the OG Wii launched, the 360 was a year old and PS3 was a known reality. Today, the competition is still shroud in mystery and hype is rising with each passing day. Plainly, Wii U will not have the benefit of being seen as "the new thing," which in Wii's case, helped compensate for its distinct lack of horsepower. That is to say nothing of the Gamepad's "freshness" level vs. motion controls.
I also doubt that developers will see Wii U as a less risky option for low budget software. The eShop, while improved, is still very much behind XBL Marketplace and even Sony's. Then, there are Apple and perhaps Valve to worry about. Developers have already said the leap in budget to this next gen will not be as great as the one from last gen to now. And let us not forget a fundamental truth - just because more power is offered does not mean that budgets have to rise. Look at the thriving indie game scene on PC as proof. Simply put, if there are many more Durangos and Orbises (Orbi?) sold, then more games will come to those consoles - high budget, low budget, and everything in between.
It brings me no delight in saying that I fear for Iwata's job and for Nintendo's relevancy in the gaming scene. I hope they have a plan, because I (and many others) are not seeing one at present.
Yeah, Nintendo doesn't have it easy. But they haven't shown much yet--Metroid HD, Zelda HD, even F-Zero HD with gamepad magic can change the game. And I feel the gamepad is easier to grasp with better returns than the wiimote alone for third parties.
Something tells me they planned the slow launch for supply/economic reasons. Their big marketing investment may be coming this year, once hardware is profitable and games are ready to show. All said, I would rather be in Nintendo's shoes; I'm enjoying the WiiU already and their approach to gaming as a board game and social media hub is fresh and inspiring.
You can only squeeze so much from the hobbyists and it's all about getting your box hooked up to people's screens before your competitors, not ASAP.
Something tells me they planned the slow launch for supply/economic reasons. Their big marketing investment may be coming this year, once hardware is profitable and games are ready to show. All said, I would rather be in Nintendo's shoes; I'm enjoying the WiiU already and their approach to gaming as a board game and social media hub is fresh and inspiring.
You can only squeeze so much from the hobbyists and it's all about getting your box hooked up to people's screens before your competitors, not ASAP.
See that's the thing, its not the developers that's completely at fault, its mostly the publishers who have their fingers on the purse strings and make the big decisions. The publishers are the ones who control the marketing and all that stuff. The developers, at least on the western side of things, who give it their honest-to-goodness best shot at development are just about all on the eShop. It's also these guys who are able to self-publish as well so they've also got a lot more at stake too. We really cant expect much from the big publishers when you have a 100 person team working on the ps3/360 builds, then only after they've mostly finished, they get 5 - 10 guys in a backroom to port that code over to the WiiU.
XtremeXpider
Member
And some Xbox 360 launch games was late gen Xbox1 ports, and most of them had better graphics/resolution. I'm not saying Wii U will not improve graphics, I'm saying I dont expect a lot of improvements.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
There's leaps on every system, even "withered technology" like the Wii or every single Nintendo handheld. Rushed Wii U launch ports already seem to be turning out a whole lot better than PS3's rushed launch ports did back in 2006/2007, just look how quick UE3 stability progressed on each platform. Some of that's likely due to the more straightforward architecture, some due to general developer versatility/knowledge but it also bodes well for the system capability off the bat. Things can improve from the technology end pretty clearly, it's really the business end that we need to worry about.
As far as the "slow RAM", it seems to be the result of a much more efficient memory architecture allowing Nintendo to go with more economical parts they can maximize performance out of. A bit like Gamecube vs Xbox, taken in isolation the parts in the Xbox blew away GC on paper, but thanks to system balance and efficiency GC ended up being competitive in real world performance. I think given so far we've had a grand total of zero complaints from developers about memory latency, and in fact we've heard nothing but the opposite from (both named and anonymous) devs complimenting Wii U's memory really, DDR3-gate is undoubtedly a total nonissue. Now the CPU on the other hand...
TheDrowningMan
Member
Given that it's let me down by DYING ON ME faster than any console I've owned I'm reticent to defend it today (
), but the CPU complaints ring a bit hollow in some respects; yes, you'll need to retool because of the lower clock speed, but it's not a horribly inefficient piece of shit. The Metro guy's comment was either disingenuous or reliant on here say, because, on the surface of it, he appeared to be saying that it just cannot compete with Xenon. That is...peculiar. My opinion is that he is off the mark.I'm not saying that it's anything special and, again, I'm not the number one (or even 150,001) authority, but it's more a case of it being a component that holds back an otherwise very capable little box rather than an outright abomination trounced by the CPU of a near-eight year old machine. I wish they'd pushed the boat out a little further on that, even at the cost of a few inches. That's not to say upping the clock speed is necessarily the improvement I'd be pining for though,
Well, for example, Repi posts on B3D.
Also I'm rather tired of the narrative of "Nintendo is doing all these great things, developers/publishers NEED to pick up the ball and run with it" If there's an area that's lacking in a Nintendo offering, even when it's something that's been lacking at Nintendo for generations somehow this isn't Nintendo's fault, they're not doing anything wrong, they have no control over and no responsibility to the situation whatsoever, it's those damned publishers and developers that need to step the fuck up and stop trying to snub Nintendo.
It's just a ridiculous mindset to get into IMO.
Melchiah
Member
The PS2 had eDRAM as well, and a 128-bit bus, so I don't really see how the GC was supposedly so groundbreaking in that regard.
Good points.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll