Wii U Speculation Thread 2: Can't take anymore of this!!!
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
bgassassin
Member
They don't need the same level of bandwidth.
Depends on how much they are willing to lose. I mentioned awhile back that I could see a scenario where Wii U is $349 and Xbox3 is $449 (including Kinect 2.0).
GameplayWhore
Member
Wii was the only one so far. When I was younger, I didn't have the money to buy systems right away. And now, I'm actually kind of angry that systems continued to get more expensive while simultaneously taking out the "free" game. Good times, back when there was literally a game burned into the ROM of the system.
So, being behind most of the time is... 'competitive'?
Ah, you must be Luckyman's alt.
GameplayWhore
Member
No. But being either ahead, on par or near to par most of the time is competitive.
feeding time, apparently
ReyVGM
Member
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. A couple of devs have already said that there's no point in porting the games over if they won't use the screen in a meaningful way.
Since GAF is better than me at finding WiiU quotes, then I'll leave to others to find that info.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
People can't remember before this current gen for some reason...
ReyVGM
Member
Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter:
I guess we will find out Wednesday if Nintendo knows there is something called the "internet".
http://www.industrygamers.com/news/ces-panel-consoles-continue-but-nintendo-is-a-loser/
I guess we will find out Wednesday if Nintendo knows there is something called the "internet".
I couldn't fathom that any developer could use the tablet as an excuse not to port a game, considering it's a dual-analog tablet with sticks and buttons like any other. It blows my mind.
Welcome back, Luckyman.
Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter: said:
At least now we know Pachter is just out to troll. Either that or he is Luckyman.
Nintex, I highly doubt general technical support is going to give you any kind of realistic answer, one way or the other.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
lol I love Pachter trolls. He is right though, I could picture Nintendo wikipedia'ing internet and online gaming and infrastructure and whatnot. They have much to catch up on. Though I'm sure they'll end up paying the right people.
Are they not? They are not showing anything of the WiiU version, they simply, like some other developers/publishers have already, are announcing WiiU support.
brain_stew
Member
L2 cache is SRAM. I never said anything about there being any eDRAM on the CPU.
But by being multi-platform developers, they're ALREADY DOING THAT. What's the point of having it on 2 consoles when they offer nothing different? I understand that devs are ripe with hypocrisy when discussing Nintendo, but that would be too far to go.
Oh Pachter..... never stop living under that bridge.
GameplayWhore
Member
The beauty of the Pac-trolls is that you can honestly believe that he believes every word he's writing. The trolling currently going on in this thread is less engaging because you know the person behind it is just having fun.
Fourth Storm
Member
Thanks. So I take it that it's a pretty 'out there' prospect. Let's assume that they have set up a daughter die on the GPU MCM for the eDRAM and the CPU can access it for certain tasks (Wii emulation being a big one). What kind of bus could we expect between the 32 MB and CPU? Seems like if the purpose is primarily for emulation, it wouldn't need to be that wide, but how else might the CPU be able to utilize such memory?
I agree that the 3DS launch lineup was typically launch-y (weak), but they did have Kid Icarus planned to be the spot light game, it just wasn't ready. Would have been interesting to have originally had:
- launch : KI:Uprising and Nintendogs + Cats
- 3 months : OoT 3D
- 6 months : Star Fox 64 3D
- 9 months: Mario Kart and SM3DL
- 12 months : Lugi's Mansion 2
By the way, picked up Pilotwings Resort and find it a lovely distraction, maybe just a little short for the flagship launch title.
All they can do is have a good plan for WiiU's lauch, but it still may not come together due to nature of development (still their fault, mind you).
brain_stew
Member
Why would you need more than 3x the bandwidth of the 360 when you've got a 32MB pool of eDRAM?
MikeE21286
Member
what's Wednesday?
Using double-clocked memory chips is just as unprecedented, let alone switching memory controllers to support a different memory tech altogether. Heck, double the memory clock on the same memory type would be quite something to see in reality as well unless you're meaning to start at a very slow speed to begin with. It's not as though GDDR5 6 or 7Gb/s is an easy thing to support in the first place due to the considerably higher demands on the signalling.
I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like non-power of two buses haven't existed on PC. They'll design it for what makes sense in bang for buck.
You'd need 6 chips with 2Gbit ram chips anyway. 4Gbit GDDR5 hasn't even seen a place on the roadmap and the 2Gbit only just started appearing recently, so you will actually need 6 chips for 1.5GB. So again, I'm not sure what the issue is. Years later there *might* be a demand for 4Gbit GDDR5 such that the console manufacture would switch and halve the number to 3 chips. That eventually translates to a cost savings (as soon as there is huge supply that is, but I wouldn't expect them to switch as soon as the chips appeared. It took forever for MS to switch to 1Gbit GDDR3 for example...
As for future cost reductions, a smaller bus is just the way to go since that will dictate the minimum perimeter of the chip. I don't see what the point of doubling the bus width is. That goes against the point of die reductions. You'd be doubling the bus width, but then you'd halve the clock rate so that the memory bandwidth spec doesn't change.
It should be obvious that doubling the density of chips doesn't require changing the bus width. We're supposedly starting at a point where they can halve the number of chips from 6 to 3, so it's a moot point. Ultimately, they'll want the minimum number and if 3 is that number, then that's that. There's no real reason to do any further changes. Anything less than 4 should already be considered pretty cheap and cost effective. And it's not like we're going to be seeing 8Gbit GDDR5 anyway.
------------
And even if they end up using DDR3, which does have readily available 4Gbit chips, then it just means they've already cost reduced as much as possible with 3 chips at the start. Why does there need to be any future change with it? The greater concern will ultimately be the processors, and the memory bus width will play a role there. Sure 128-bit might have been ideal for going down to 2 chips, but everyone is talking about a particularly odd memory configuration anyway (1.5GB), which by nature can't be using a power of two memory bus (lest they do some real weird funky business).
bgassassin
Member
Anything but Reggie
Simply put something that is beyond PS360 and in range of Xbox3/PS4. The console is 1080p-capable, but devs will most likely target 720p.
Nintendo Investors Meeting, people think we are going to get something from it.
brain_stew
Member
The Wii U isn't going to be close to the PS4 and Xbox 3, although the latter two will likely be almost interchangeable.
96-bit and 192-bit buses are only suggested to fit 1.5 GB of memory into it. That's not supported by rumours at all, and I simply don't see it happening. Unless a small miracle occurred and Nintendo fitted in 2GB of memory, the Wii U is equipped with 1 GB of memory with a nice regular 128-bit bus and a nice regular amount of memory chips. There might be some EDRAM caches, there might be even some fallback RAM that is used for the OS, but it's not likely to have effectively more RAM than 1 GB for games.
You're confusing next gen with this gen. There's really no way you could say that with any degree of certainty about next gen. I'll give you the Wii U being weaker, but there's nothing indicating the PS4 and Xbox 3 going to be close. There's nothing even indicating a PS4 at all!
bgassassin
Member
I think close is subjective considering the amount of people out there that think next gen will be a repeat of this gen in that regard.
Do ya think Nintendo will try/be able to push a great frame rate and iq out of the machine all at 1080?
brain_stew
Member
Using a 96 bit bus would allow you to switch to 3 RAM chips in a future revision. Using a 128 bit bus would mean that you'll always have to use at least 4 RAM chips. If Nintendo feel that 1GB of RAM isn't enough then a 96 bit bus needs to be considered imo.
I think Nintendo usually tends to keep it simple and efficient, graphics-wise. With the way they are targeting the core gamers, though, I hope they show off their skills and set the bar high for 3rd parties to follow.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
honestly, all I hope is that ALL the engines (cryengine, fox engine, luminous engine, unreal engine 4, etc...) all run WELL on the WiiU. I hope Nintendo consulted with all those big companies.
Hot Coldman
Banned
Two days after Monday
bgassassin
Member
Nintendo themselves might sense that's the only console they'll be focused on. 3rd parties that are making multi-plats may sacrifice that to achieve a certain look across the board (compared to Xbox3 and PS4). My opinion of course.
AceBandage
Banned
THE:MILKMAN
Member
All this talk of future revisions got me thinking. I look up the Wii, Gamecube and N64 and none seem to have had a revision. ie: die shrink.
Is this wrong? And is it expected to change with Wii U?
I'm guessing it ain't cheap to do slim editions.
Is this wrong? And is it expected to change with Wii U?
I'm guessing it ain't cheap to do slim editions.
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
Whatever. I still don't understand what the appeal is, of a huge screen on a controller. From my point of view they're heading straight into the abyss. I just don't see how this idea of a console could thrive, unless it has tons of powerful software and a good price.
Yeah, looking at the size of the box and if they are going for the five year plan.
I dont see revisions planned. Though, technically, there is a Wii slim for Europe.
But what they really did was take out the backwards compatibility with GC.
AceBandage
Banned
Software is always the most important part, but why exactly is the controller the problem?
It has standard buttons and the added benefit of motion controls.
All the screen does is allow for more expansive gameplay options.
brain_stew
Member
Well for me, there really isn't one, although being able to play full console games on a handheld in bed is cool. More than anything, I just want to be able to play Nintendo games without making my eyes bleed or having to resort to emulation. The Wii is an embarrassing abomination at this point, no active console has ever felt so antiquated.
The devkit GPU has the raw power to do slightly more work on pixels in 1080p than the 360 can do on 720p. Furthermore it has much more EDRAM to make it very substantially better at doing AA. There's also a much larger shading capacity and likely tesselation and other goodies.
So it will be able to deliver superior IQ to Xbox 360/PS3 games on 1080p. I think it's likely Nintendo will use this resolution for most of their casual aimed games.
Azelover
Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
Iwata said it best, the PS2 generation was the last one where technical specs made a big difference. It's strange now to see them backtrack on that philosophy. Of course, what really drives the momentum is the software, so it doesn't matter what the box does, as long as the right software is there. But the killer application is no longer graphics, the fact that all they could come up with to follow up on the Wii remote was a big touchscreen makes me cringe.
To get the textures into ED/Drawn faster??
fabricated backlash
Member
They were the ones who confirmed that Xenoblade and Last Story were being translated before amy official announcement was made.
I'm stepping in for opiate here... these are the two options we have:
1. Nintendo has rebranded Nintendo WiFi Connection for the 3DS and they added paid DLC and perhaps Wii U but that's it for the time being.
2. Nintendo will announce their Xbox Live counterpart this week at an investors conference.
Which one is more likely?
UncleSporky
Member
Wait, what? How have they backtracked on that philosophy?
Suppose they didn't backtrack from your point of view. What would we be seeing right now as an indication of that?
Personally I think releasing a console that's only potentially as good as your competitors (clearly not attempting to blow them out of the water) means that you don't think power is going to win the generation. Additionally, focusing on other features to attract consumers' attention like motion control and tablet screens would seem to back up that idea - you attract people more with interesting features rather than raw power.
- Status