Support NeoGAF

[TheExplodingHead]

Yeah, there's clearly some aspects that have been touched upon. But they also remained understandably vague.

But now I'm curious, bgassassin, since you've been posting some specific specs, if you were to configure what you'd estimate being the lowest spec WiiU, what would that be? Then if you were to imagine the lowest specs Nintendo could get away with, what would those be? Do they match up?

To be perfectly honest there's a big reason why it's all so vague, because nobody knows anything specific and if they do they wouldn't be posting it on GAF. All we can do is speculate specs by inferred price range, box dimensions, what little has been said/confirmed and what we think Nintendo should do. But to be honest it might not mean jack when the specsheet is finalized, just like with the Wii.

My worst case scenario (spec wise and controller wise), is:

Nintendo opts for a conservative but efficient Tri-Core CPU and reserves a core for streaming functions and OS functions. The reasoning behind this might be as simple as Nintendo wanting to guarantee the controller ALWAYS works as advertised no matter what and easier to develop for. 2.6GHz and "decent amounts" of edram, maybe 3-5MB when all is said and done. The controller functions both from a consumer and developer standpoint will be of top priority to get right, especially after the dev concerns we've already heard rumors of.

Nintendo goes for a reasonally powerful custom GPU based on something a bit higher end (4800 mark) but nerfs it to a lower clock, less SPU's (640), but with a few goodies carried over from recent cards. This should be the powerhouse of the system, and will also have dedication to making sure the streaming works flawlessly.

They'll go with GDDR3 at launch and in later revisions move to GDDR5. I think worst case they'll go with 700-1GB. And again reserve a bit of memory for controller stuff. For gaming purposes I'd say the lowest they'd go is 512MB, some set aside for other tasks.

And those are just the basic three. Everything else like WiFi/ports/DVD/controller/pack-in could theoretically be of great quality if they went this route. They could price at $269-$300 and still walk away happy. I think all things considered it would sell way better than the GC and about even with 360. In my mind this would be a mistake to not go higher and future proof, but I do think they could get away with it.

 

[BY2K]

E3 2012 will rock our faces right off.

That's all I'll say and you know I'm right.

 

[AzaK]

And to that I would say, that would be a really good success. By aiming for that, they would make a good profit.

This answer is an example of why I was saying earlier that some of the posts weren't "pessimistic" enough. If pretty much a 360 gets them 70% Wii, then why would they add anything to it, hardware wise?

Well, firstly, Nintendo know a shitload more than I do about this business, so I suggest my 70% is +/- 70%.

Secondly, Nintendo won't put anything in they think they don't need to. Just look at the 3ds, it's a prime example IMO. One analog stick, asymmetric screen sizes, Low-ish resolution and a marketing gimmick in 3d (btw, I have a 3ds and love it). All they need to do is offer more than before, strong game lineup ( which they didn't with the 3ds) and an acceptable price (which is inherently related to the former 2 items).

E3 2012 will rock our faces right off.

That's all I'll say and you know I'm right.

I am very much willing to lose my face. So long as my eyes remain to enjoy the glory.

 

[brain_stew]

Just how do you stomp anti-Nintendo bias from publishers? Not even lead sales success helped the Wii.

It's like they look for every single excuse "because it's a Nintendo console".

The lack of third party software on the Wii was entirely Nintendo's fault. They engineered the situation by putting out last generation hardware.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

Just how do you stomp anti-Nintendo bias from publishers? Not even lead sales success helped the Wii.

It's like they look for every single excuse "because it's a Nintendo console".

People should stop repeating this mantra because it's simply not true.

The whole third party market on the Wii is a very complex situation that can't be reduced to "lol haters!".

The lack of third party software on the Wii was entirely Nintendo's fault. They engineered the situation by putting out last generation hardware.

That's only part of the equation, but yes that definetely didn't help. It didn't help at all.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

Well, based on what we know right now, it could be between 2 and 5, actually.
All really depends on the GPU at this point.

There's nothing that indicates Wii U could be that much better than this gen at this point.

It would be nice though.

 

[magash]

People should stop repeating this mantra because it's simply not true.

The whole third party market on the Wii is a very complex situation that can't be reduced to "lol haters!".

That's only part of the equation, but yes that definetely didn't help. It didn't help at all.

There is absolutely nothing complex about the Wii situation. Third party developers stupidly thought that they could get away with producing substandard and shitty software. The joke was on them as it turns out that consumers (you know the people that decide the future of businesses) dislike being taken for granted.

 

[mrklaw]

(going further into "grumpy old man" mode here) Somewhere along the way, we got this collective bug up our butts that we need another DVD player/Netflix player/internet program in the living room, and a bare-bones box that just plays games when you out a disc in it -(wow!) - would be viewed pretty negatively. Makes me wonder how our spoiled asses got along without these added features in the olden days..

Why wouldn't you put netflix/internet stuff on? Its zero hardware cost, and if you develop your OS to be flexible, adding netflix/catch up TV channels shouldn't be much in terms of software cost either.

and if Nintendo is intending to woo 3rd parties back by providing decent online and enough power to take multiplatform games, then they have to cater for those households that will be one console, and that console being the Wii U. In which case I'd say they do need enough of those value-add services that the other consoles offer.

and Wii already offers netflix and iplayer etc, so why wouldn't they?

 

[FyreWulff]

Because DVD playback royalties rang from 10$ to 20$ per device sold. Add in Blu Ray and that's adding a ton of cost to a console. There's also minimum hardware the console must have on it, which limits their ability to cut costs down the road. Now remember that you're dealing with a company that is very frugal with their hardware designs. They make their hardware to a general price point first, they don't make a console and figure out how much it's going to be after they're done like Sony and MS.

Know why Nintendo was the first one to go fully neutral storage? Because honestly, it saved them money. They didn't have to run lines for proprietary memory cards, they didn't have to build plants to package special HDDs, they just bought an SD card reader they they needed and put it on their console. They let the SD licensor worry about compatibility, not themselves.

It took Microsoft halfway through a generation to figure that out, and Sony is still clinging onto their MagicGate or whateverthefuck it is due to the way Sony's corporate politics influence their console designs. The closest Nintendo will ever court DVD/BR playback is a completely separate version with them on it.

 

[FreeMufasa]

E3 2012 will rock our faces right off.

That's all I'll say and you know I'm right.

Wow, it's already almost 6 months till E3.

 

[Nuclear Muffin]

Woah woah, slow down there partner. I'm only saying that Nintendo doesn't cater to the modern core gamers who play games like Assassins Creed/Halo/Uncharted/Call of Duty etc. they aim their games at families. The Zelda commercial shows it, the father played Zelda as a teenager in high school and now there's a game that he can play with his 6/8 year old son. I'm not making this is up, it's their marketing message! Here's an Iwata Asks on the subject: http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wii/zelda-skyward-sword/6/5

Nintendo aims their games at families because those are buying the Wii right now, there's nothing bad or good about it it's simply an observation. The other observation is that Nintendo has said at E3 that the Wii U is designed for the core market but they have yet to develop or publish/secure for example a succesful online multiplayer shooter. Which is kinda strange since they were fairly quick to jump on the Monster Hunter-train in Japan which is aimed at a very specific group of core gamers.

As for the terms you might not like it but Nintendo is using them all the time. Saying that game systems had become too complex for newcomers and they wanted that group back into gaming as well. A noble effort that has certainly grown the market but it also meant that their own fanbase felt kinda left out during parts of the Wii's lifecycle. In fact the Wii U name is based on this, at E3 Reggie said that: 'some of you felt' (the core gamers in the audience) ' Wii is not for me' they revealed it as a system that would not only be used by families or in a multiplayer environment but would also offer deep and rich gameplay experiences for gamers mostly playing alone both online and offline. That's where the name comes from "Wii U" a "Wii for You".

Nintendo was also one of the first publishers who made packaging to show a difference between 'core' and 'casual' games with labels like Touch Generations! . It was made so people who were new to gaming knew what type of games they should buy.

So that's why I don't get why Nintendo fans feel I guess.. offended(?) or annoyed when this is brought up because in reality Nintendo actively split their product line in what they called 'core games', 'casual games' and 'bridge games' like Mario Kart.

Now everything you've said there is fine and dandy and all, but Nintendo have never used those first 2 terms ("bridge" games were coined by them though)

They only use the terms "expanded audience" and "experienced" gamers (Reggie does sometimes refer to them as the "core" audience when speaking to the likes of IGN or Gametrailers though. Which is fine, since using "core" in that context is actually the correct use in terms of actual Blue Ocean Strategy terminology). It was Microsoft and Sony who referred to them as "Core" and "Casual" (and they did a fantastic job of corrupting the meaning of the word "casual" as well), splitting them into two distinct factions that dare not touch one another.

Nintendo are the ones who have not gone out of their way to split their audience into two factions, which is why they focus so much on making all of their "core" series as accessible as possible (unlike MS, who are happy to throw "outsiders" under the bus when it comes to games like Halo and GOW, which grandma wouldn't touch with a 40 foot pole)

Even within the "Touch Generations" brand, you'll find games that many people could previously identify (prior to this generation) as "gamers games". Games like Rhythm Heaven, Tetris DS, True Swing Golf, Planet Puzzle League, Picross DS, Picross 3D, Magnetica, Hotel Dusk, Elite Beat Agents, Endless Ocean and Another Code: R (All of which were released under the Touch Generations branding) could be considered to be "core" games quite easily.

 

[brain_stew]

That's only part of the equation, but yes that definetely didn't help. It didn't help at all.

No, that was the equation. Just as the entire industry was moving towards multiplatform development and had began to invest into a completely new design paradigm, Nintendo put up the middle finger. Expecting significant investment in exclusive software with no where near adequate investment in co-marketing and co-funding from Nintendo was a ludicrous hope. It was never going to happen.

 

[11redder]

Considering my PS3 died the instant I turned it on to play Skyrim for the first time - I'd buy them.

I feel your pain - my PS3 died earlier this year. Don't despair though, the YLOD (I'm presuming that's the problem) is a pretty easy fix, it only takes about an hour and much of that is spent waiting for the chips to cool after reflowing. Its cheap too, the necessary equipment only costs about $40.

I held off on doing it for months, but after getting around to it, I wondered why I hadn't tried ages earlier. If I can do it, pretty much anyone can.

The good thing about it dying is that I have a backlog of games, so I'm holding off buying any of this years big releases in the hope they come to the Wii U

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

No, that was the equation. Just as the entire industry was moving towards multiplatform development and had began to invest into a completely new design paradigm, Nintendo put up the middle finger. Expecting significant investment in exclusive software with no where near adequate investment in co-marketing and co-funding from Nintendo was a ludicrous hope. It was never going to happen.

And I agree, but that's not the only factor that affected Wii's third party support.

Wii's market is a mix of old school and new gamers and this last group have strong similarities to the ios or social gaming market where a handful of games have incredibly high sales while everything else barely sells. Traditional consoles have this phenomenon too (see COD and the like) but to a much lesser extent.

Targeting the more traditional Wii gamers was easy but that market was relatively small compared to the entire Wii market, making porting games not as profitable as some may think given Wii's strong hw sales, especially when you had to create them from scratch due to extreme hardware and performance differences between the Wii and the other systems.

OTOH targeting those new gamers was risky as hell as they were pretty unpredictable and required tons of marketing and word of mouth for your game to be successful. Either you made tons of cash or you flopped hard and that last scenario was by far the most common.

So yes hardware differences were a HUGE problem but not the only one.

 

[chris3116]

This is probably overly pessimistic, but I'd bet that no matter how powerful Nintendo makes this console, third parties (especially western) will still deliberately skip putting any big titles onto it.

Then, many who whine about Nintendo platforms not getting big third-party titles will promptly turn around and reward third parties by buyng those titles on the other consoles.

Just a hunch.

That's what I'm thinking as well. Western developers are kind of picky with Nintendo platforms unless you're EA, Ubisoft or Activision. Then again, developers like Irrational games or DICE don't seem to be in part for Wii U at all. They seem to say yeah it's cool but we don't have anything for it. If Battlefield 3 or Bioshock is coming on Wii U, it will be outsourced.

Even if the Wii was more powerful than the 360 or PS3, western developers would not give it a chance.

As for me, I don't really care about big 3rd party western games unless they're indies.

 

[monome]

I was in the 3DS post launch hate-train, and Mario Kart 7 has served me more than my share of humble pie.

I want to support Nintendo, jsut by the right amount as for them no to get cocky and make it rain Imagine Babiez on WiiU like ittype of franchise they can get from 3rd parties.

Imagine changing diaperz on WiiU tablet. Or checking if it's poo-poo time in AR.

 

[mrklaw]

its my daughter's christmas present...

 

[mrklaw]

And I agree, but that's not the only factor that affected Wii's third party support.

Wii's market is a mix of old school and new gamers and this last group have strong similarities to the ios or social gaming market where a handful of games have incredibly high sales while everything else barely sells. Traditional consoles have this phenomenon too (see COD and the like) but to a much lesser extent.

Targeting the more traditional Wii gamers was easy but that market was relatively small compared to the entire Wii market, making porting games not as profitable as some may think given Wii's strong hw sales, especially when you had to create them from scratch due to extreme hardware and performance differences between the Wii and the other systems.

OTOH targeting those new gamers was risky as hell as they were pretty unpredictable and required tons of marketing and word of mouth for your game to be successful. Either you made tons of cash or you flopped hard and that last scenario was by far the most common.

So yes hardware differences were a HUGE problem but not the only one.

You don't need to 'target' those gamers. If Nintendo had a platform that allowed simpler multiplatform development, the cost of delivering to Wii would have been much more acceptable to publishers. The new consumers buying into Wii and gaming for perhaps the first time, are very desirable to publishers. You don't think they would have relished being able to tell people that they can play that big FPS or sports games that their 'gamer' friends play?

 

[Shanadeus]

Because DVD playback royalties rang from 10$ to 20$ per device sold. Add in Blu Ray and that's adding a ton of cost to a console. There's also minimum hardware the console must have on it, which limits their ability to cut costs down the road. Now remember that you're dealing with a company that is very frugal with their hardware designs. They make their hardware to a general price point first, they don't make a console and figure out how much it's going to be after they're done like Sony and MS.

Know why Nintendo was the first one to go fully neutral storage? Because honestly, it saved them money. They didn't have to run lines for proprietary memory cards, they didn't have to build plants to package special HDDs, they just bought an SD card reader they they needed and put it on their console. They let the SD licensor worry about compatibility, not themselves.

It took Microsoft halfway through a generation to figure that out, and Sony is still clinging onto their MagicGate or whateverthefuck it is due to the way Sony's corporate politics influence their console designs. The closest Nintendo will ever court DVD/BR playback is a completely separate version with them on it.

They could always pass that cost onto the consumer ala Xbox Phat, by giving customers to buy a "channel" that unlocks blu-ray/DVD playback.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

You don't need to 'target' those gamers. If Nintendo had a platform that allowed simpler multiplatform development, the cost of delivering to Wii would have been much more acceptable to publishers. The new consumers buying into Wii and gaming for perhaps the first time, are very desirable to publishers. You don't think they would have relished being able to tell people that they can play that big FPS or sports games that their 'gamer' friends play?

Of course, I'm not denying that. Publishers would have loved putting all those multiplatform games on the Wii if porting was easy.

As I said, the hardware gap was a huge problem. It just wasn't the only one, especially when many of those new gamers aren't all that interested in the kind of experiences traditional gaming offers. The Wii grabbed my mother's attention the moment she watched a tv ad when she has never cared much about gaming. While she might be interested in some traditional games (RE for example), I can't see her playing Battlefield 3 or Bayonetta. She's just not that into gaming.

 

[Übermatik]

Wow, it's already almost 6 months till E3.

So it is!

 

[AzaK]

They could always pass that cost onto the consumer ala Xbox Phat, by giving customers to buy a "channel" that unlocks blu-ray/DVD playback.

This is what I want. I am happy to pay the costs of adding what's needed because I just want less crap under my TV. One device that plays at least DVDs and my ripped media (And preferably BluRay, but that DEFINITELY wont happen) has lots of value to me. But Nintendo are frustratingly stubborn in this regard.

 

[BY2K]

Wow, it's already almost 6 months till E3.

Funny you say that, because Attendee registration for E3 2012 just opened today.

 

[MDX]

This is what I want. I am happy to pay the costs of adding what's needed because I just want less crap under my TV. One device that plays at least DVDs and my ripped media (And preferably BluRay, but that DEFINITELY wont happen) has lots of value to me. But Nintendo are frustratingly stubborn in this regard.

This is what Wii owners wanted.
But maybe its not just Nintendo being stubborn,
maybe there are difficult legal hurdles they have yet to overcome.

 

[woo and indeed hoo]

Wow, it's already almost 6 months till E3.

Funny you say that, because Attendee registration for E3 2012 just opened today.

Well E3 is less than six months away you know?!

 

[Hero of Legend]

Time flies!

But then I guess summer and fall are the quickest to pass with vacation and school and all?

Nah, school from here on should also help pass the time.

 

[Kandinsky]

Wonder if we will see the WiiU version of DQX@Jump Festa, at least is listed as Wii/WiiU still lol.

 

[Hero of Legend]

Wonder if we will see the WiiU version of DQX@Jump Festa, at least is listed as Wii/WiiU still lol.

Highly doubtful, I doubt they even began the Wii U version, they'll likely wait until the main Wii version is done first.

 

[bgassassin]

Yeah, there's clearly some aspects that have been touched upon. But they also remained understandably vague.

But now I'm curious, bgassassin, since you've been posting some specific specs, if you were to configure what you'd estimate being the lowest spec WiiU, what would that be? Then if you were to imagine the lowest specs Nintendo could get away with, what would those be? Do they match up?

Nah I think they're pretty clear, but that's due to more than one source. And I don't quite understand the premise of the questions though, as the range of how low it can be versus what they can get away with would be pretty big to me. I've also talked about the prices and what was feasible based on what we know. $349 most likely with a minimum of $329 and probably taking a loss on both retail amounts.

 

[Boney]

Wonder if we will see the WiiU version of DQX@Jump Festa, at least is listed as Wii/WiiU still lol.

why wouldn't it still be Wii/WiiU?

 

[sfried]

The lack of third party software on the Wii was entirely Nintendo's fault. They engineered the situation by putting out last generation hardware.

And what about GameCube? You blame them for that, too?

"Because they weren't mature enough."

Such utter bullshit and you know it. There were many factors that might have made the GC take the lead from the PS2 if only publishers held on to keeping games exclusive to it (such as RE4), but the install base was huge on the other side of the pond and that's what made them consider porting it over, even if it did result in an "inferior" version.

With that logic, they took the Wii and made it the system first out of the gate in order to build install base. In the long term it was a success, but 3rd parties once again placed the blame on slipshod motion controls, not being in HD, and Wii "being for casuals and kiddies".

Regardless of what they could've done, the sentiment remains the same. They need to kill this particular bias if they are to succeed. But that would mean shedding off their "identity" which would be the crux of the dilemma.

 

[Shanadeus]

The inclusion of some sort of magnetometer in the WiiPad made me wonder about the viability of creating a "WiiMotion++"- or "WiiMagnetic"-dongle to be attached to the current Wiimote controller with Motion+ build in.

The standard controller would then include this magnetic sensor ( I think it's supposed to combat gyro drifting? Meaning no more calibration mid-game.) and any current existing WiiMotion+ controller would still be usable with the Wii U if they only buy this cheap magnetic sensor dongle.

The downside would be potential consumer confusion and vanilla wiimotes requring two dongles to be compatible with the Wii U - which might not even be technically feasible.

Any thoughts?

 

[AzaK]

This is what Wii owners wanted.
But maybe its not just Nintendo being stubborn,
maybe there are difficult legal hurdles they have yet to overcome.

I don't honestly know, but it seems that it's really just a matter of cost and licensing. They need to add the code and the specific hardware requirements.

Oh well, looks like I'll have to keep a DVD player around, AND a media streaming box. What a pain in the arse.

 

[jump_button]

I hope they will be a Wii mote+ in the box as well as the Wii pad

 

[Nuclear Muffin]

The inclusion of some sort of magnetometer in the WiiPad made me wonder about the viability of creating a "WiiMotion++"- or "WiiMagnetic"-dongle to be attached to the current Wiimote controller with Motion+ build in.

The standard controller would then include this magnetic sensor ( I think it's supposed to combat gyro drifting? Meaning no more calibration mid-game.) and any current existing WiiMotion+ controller would still be usable with the Wii U if they only buy this cheap magnetic sensor dongle.

The downside would be potential consumer confusion and vanilla wiimotes requring two dongles to be compatible with the Wii U - which might not even be technically feasible.

Any thoughts?

Nah, no point. The magenetometer helps, but it doesn't do that much to prevent gyro drift. The sensor bar more than makes up for the lack of a magnetometer.

 

[Caelus]

I hope they will be a Wii mote+ in the box as well as the Wii pad

This should be standard, didn't they say Zelda Wii U would use motion controls? They'd want a bundle.

 

[FyreWulff]

This should be standard, didn't they say Zelda Wii U would use motion controls? They'd want a bundle.

In theory, the Wii U would come with both a Wii U tablet controller and a Wiimoteplus + Nunchuk.

 

[AzaK]

I hope they will be a Wii mote+ in the box as well as the Wii pad

Probably be madness not to. A WiiMote+ and Nunchuck probably costs them less than a cup of coffee to make. The could probably get away with leaving out the nunchuck if the tablet us holdable in one hand.....probably.

 

[hatchx]

Highly doubtful, I doubt they even began the Wii U version, they'll likely wait until the main Wii version is done first.

This would be a poor decision in my opinion.

The closer to the Wii U Launch DQX is the better.

 

[Luckyman]

$349 most likely with a minimum of $329 and probably taking a loss on both retail amounts.

Absolute madness. Nintendo is not going to design a system that loses money. Let a alone lose money at 349.

 

[bgassassin]

Absolute madness. Nintendo is not going to design a system that loses money. Let a alone lose money at 349.

Seriously. Why do you even come to this thread?

 

[BurntPork]

Seriously. Why do you even come to this thread?

Why do you respond to him?

 

[bgassassin]

Why do you respond to him?

Mental insanity I'm assuming. I regret making that username.

 

[FyreWulff]

Absolute madness. Nintendo is not going to design a system that loses money. Let a alone lose money at 349.

The Wii is the only Nintendo system that was sold at a relative profit at launch. It was the exception, not the rule.

 

[Jocchan]

Seriously. Why do you even come to this thread?

To make people laugh, I guess.

 

[Gaborn]

$349 most likely with a minimum of $329 and probably taking a loss on both retail amounts.

This strikes me as reasonable since there is a sense that a WiiMote+ in box is probable. I also expect a pack in Wii U Sports type game to help the casuals flock to it. $329/$349 would be a bargain for all of that.

The Wii is the only Nintendo system that was sold at a relative profit at launch. It was the exception, not the rule.

This is actually not true. The GameCube was the only Nintendo system that sold at a LOSS at launch so far.

 

[Kandinsky]

why wouldn't it still be Wii/WiiU?

It just was surprising to me that they were listing it for both wii and wiiu for the show, but I just checked and it wont be playable so nvm.

 

[StevieP]

The Wii is the only Nintendo system that was sold at a relative profit at launch. It was the exception, not the rule.

According to an article on Forbes I read awhile back, the Wii was making $6/retail unit (after all was said and done).

This strikes me as reasonable since there is a sense that a WiiMote+ in box is probable. I also expect a pack in Wii U Sports type game to help the casuals flock to it. $329/$349 would be a bargain for all of that.

Price certainly matters, but not as much as software.

 

[Gaborn]

Price certainly matters, but not as much as software.

Completely agree, so we'll see what Nintendo learned from 3DS. My guess: Wii Sports U bundled with the console (many many more core games available at launch as well) and Wii U Fit available either at launch or for the holidays. No problem for Wii U.

 

[BlackNMild2k1]

Absolute madness. Nintendo is not going to design a system that loses money. Let a alone lose money at 349.

You guys disagree with this statement? ...well all of this statement?
Because I don't think Nintendo is gonna design a system that would lose money at $350 either, but that's mostly because they've never designed a $350 system before as far as I know.