24 Feet / 8 Meters is their official max distance. But this is also a Nintendo number, so it's a conservative number.
Rumor: Wii U final specs
- Thread starter EatChildren
- Start date
24 Feet / 8 Meters is their official max distance. But this is also a Nintendo number, so it's a conservative number.
What a shame. Won't affect me though because I game in my bedroom anyways. But still... disappointing.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Really? HUDs in real life are an optimisation to a very specific task - the overall response time of the pilot/operator. Games have the liberty to throw arbitrary tasks/conditions at the player, for the sake of engaging the player in something they'd find, for a lack of better word - fun. Frankly, I feel awkward for having to explain such a basic idea on a gaming forum.
DaSorcerer7
Member
Its quite a good distance I think.
For comparison, Nintendo said the official range of the Wavebird was 20 feet. People had it working at over 60-70 feet away.
A lot has changed on the PC scene since the current generation of consoles began though.. videocards draw WAAAAAY more power than they did back then. Yes, they will make very powerful consoles, but there's asbsolutely no way you will see something near the top in terms of gpu performance even including what is available for PC today (ie. 680/7970).
plagiarize
Banned
really now. that's just nonsense. it wasn't true this gen. it wasn't true last gen. it might have been true the one before it, but i doubt it. with Sony and Microsoft much less likely to go with a console that sells for a huge loss, and with this generation having gone on for so long they won't need to, to get the 'normal' generational bump.
the next consoles aren't going to be doing anything a current high end PC can't do. the days of people waving around SD games as looking better than the HD games running on PC are far behind us.
Brad Grenz
Member
Pseudo_Sam
Survives without air, food, or water
Wut? Have you ever played a DS game? Less hud rocks.
Gemüsepizza
Member
Maybe, if your screen is <5 inch and if the resolution is low.
KojiKnight
Member
I think you're creating a problem where there isn't one... in what game shown has the entire HUD been on the controller? Has anyone complained about having to take their eyes off of the game screen (aside from to Zombi U when it's done to enhance immersion)?
There is no reason why you can't move information that isn't always needed off of the big screen to free up room. Likewise, most games instead of taking information from the screen add MORE useful to the screen that you couldn't normally have on your TV (See detailed maps on AssCreed 3 and ME3)
Do you even realize how many gamers prefer a HUDless option in games? Or why many games have it fade when its been unaffected in a while?
I'm not a pilot, and no matter how urgently I need to kill that guy I don't need to see how much ammo I have on the screen or my remaining mana or whatever.
Exactly. A large part of the improvements over the years didn't come from more efficient hardware, it came from ever increasing power consumption. My first PC, a 486SX25, had a single cooler that was smaller than many current chipset coolers and absolutely tiny compared to current CPU coolers. Consumption increased from a few Watt to nearly a Kilowatt in the last two decades. Same thing with consoles - but those pretty much hit a wall last gen.
Brad Grenz
Member
If you're doing that, you might as well bring up a menu on the main screen. Since you're going to have to take your eyes off the action in either case, the significant expense of a controller screen simply isn't justified. The money for the screen and the wireless video transmission hardware would be better spent on more powerful components, or a lower entry price.
DragonSworne
Banned
Or you know, not buy a gaming system and go outside and play.
Things like kinect and move aren't justified. Having a tablet control makes sense.
Do you guys really think that this motherboard(system) design can be 4x more powerful the current gen?
It might be quite efficient according to Iwata, but that much powerful... I don't know, I can already see MS and Sony console's motherboard being two or three times more packed.
It might be quite efficient according to Iwata, but that much powerful... I don't know, I can already see MS and Sony console's motherboard being two or three times more packed.
Pulling up a menu isn't the same. If you check your wallet, a backpack or any other container, a map, a book or pretty much anything else, you're not holding it up to eye level - you look down. It's perfectly natural. And more importantly, you still kinda notice what happens in front of you while looking down, and peripheral vision also works with the GamePad. It doesn't work with a menu obstructing the view.
KojiKnight
Member
That is your opinion, nothing wrong with that... but I just don't see the fixation. Why does Nintendo have to compete hardware wise with theoretical PS4/X-box 720? Nintendo didn't compete with them directly and it worked out quite well for them. If Nintendo isn't doing the things you want from a console, why get it? There are perfectly good alternatives coming out in a year or two.
yomer: Easily, Moore's law is still in effect and it's been 7 years. Whether Nintendo actually has done so is the current debate
Team Filler
Member
Because they're stealing our games, duh.
Gemüsepizza
Member
Do you guys really think that this motherboard(system) design can be 4x more powerful the current gen?
It might be quite efficient according to Iwata, but that much powerful... I don't know, I can already see MS and Sony console's motherboard being two or three times more packed.
I don't think it is 4x more powerful, maybe 1,5x. The PS4 and the Xbox 720 on the other hand will probably be 4 times as big as the Wii U and consum 4-5 times the power of the Wii U under load. They will be much more powerful. It's physics. You can't put that much power in such a small case, with such a small thermal solution.
plagiarize
Banned
so you're going to notice a 10% drop in resolution when you haven't noticed that COD games don't run at 1280 x 720?
of course we have no way of knowing what resolution Blops 2 is running at on Wii U, but a full 858 x 480 would be more pixels than you get in half of what COD games normally run at (1024 x 600, so 512 x 600 is what you get split screen).
so it could well be MORE pixels. at the proper aspect ratio. you can't compare the screensizes either because one's a portable device and one is a TV. i regularly play games on something with only a couple of inches of screen space. but it doesn't matter because they're in a device strapped right to my forehead.
and finally, of course, having your own screen gives each player more privacy.
and we're completely ignoring that the person using the TV gets double the resolution they would previously get (or at the very least, gets the same resolution but in a much more natural aspect ratio).
DaSorcerer7
Member
Gemüsepizza;43118447 said:
Some very specific figures there.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Well, feel free to fill me in exactly what 'broader problem' (other than absolute response time) HUDs solve.
Also, you may have to re-direct your righteous critique at other companies (nintendo don't mandate anything about the pad screen usage), say, at Ubi with ZombiU, which apparently takes gaming back to the pre-HUD era (boy, those were some dark ages).
Gemüsepizza
Member
Wasn't the Wii U version of Blops 2 supposed to be "Full HD"?
DeuceGamer
Member
Gemüsepizza;43111748 said:
When? After they have already bought the Wii U, a few titles, and gotten comfortable with the OS features and Gamepad? If that's the case, will the improvement they see from Wii U to PS720 be enough they are compelled to buy a completely different console?
The point was it goes to show that there is a segment of "gamers" that believe a small improvement in Graphics along with a Gamepad type feature is totally next gen and amazing.
Exactly. The point is they were excited to learn Nintendo had a new system that should offer a small graphical improvement over current gen games and a "controller with a screen/tablet" (whatever they want to call it). For others they will also be excited about TVii, Miiverse, Facebook, etc.... They could care less if it has 1 GFLOP or 1000TFLOPS. For them, they see games that look pretty amazing and these other features that they can only get on Wii U currently.
Again, Azak knocks it out of the park here, IMO
I would also add, I'm sure we will see an improvement in Wii U and another improvement in PS720. The real question comes down to this segment I'm speaking of, the consumers that fall somewhere between gaf gamers and casuals. If they already feel graphics are "amazing and I can't imagine them getting much better" then they will start looking at other reasons to purchase a system. Wii U has a cool Tablet (atleast that was the feeling of those I spoke with). These same gamers already have an Xbox and don't use Kinect. IF these types of "gamers" end up purchasing a Wii U for any reason, will the PS720 offer that much of an improvement to those "gamers" that they feel it's necessary to spend, new console-type of money on PS720 when they just purchased Wii U? At what point? 2-3 years into the PS720? At that point Wii U will be around 4 years old Nintendo will possibly be revealing a new system again.
In the end, I feel there are a ton of variables that can't be predicted. It's going to be an interesting gen and I can't wait! I will be getting a Wii U at launch and I will get either a PS or Xbox also, depending on final specs. Hopefully, we have a tough competition among all 3, that way we as gamers win!
Brad Grenz
Member
The mere novelty of getting to look at my hands in a "natural" fashion in no way justifies the burden placed on the system by a costly wireless tablet controller.
Obviously Nintendo feels the need to differentiate their product. I just think in this case they've fixated on a terrible idea built on a false premise, one that adds significant expense for all but nonexistent gameplay advantages.
LegendofJoe
Member
What is the liklihood that some kind of range extender will be released for the U pad? If it could take the range up to around 50 feet or so I would be able to play games in my bedroom with the console in the living room. That would be a killer app for me.
Maybe not, but the fact that it also enables games that would simply be impossible to do on traditional controllers does.
You should look up one of the Wii U's launch titles called ZombiU. It makes some pretty good use of the gamepad and shows some ways that it can actually enhance the gameplay experience. Keep in mind that it is only a launch title and ideas are likely to become more fleshed out as time goes on.
KojiKnight
Member
A serious question, would any gimmick that kept the specs the same/the price the same be worth the price of admission you think? Say, instead of the touch tablet they paired the system with true VR goggles ala what Valve is working on.
Graphics Horse
Member
I doubt anyone knows, but I'd be surprised if it happened.
Could you instead get a longer HDMI cable and put the console nearer the middle of the house? Edit: that probably wouldn't cover the extra range you're looking at, but we'll have to see how it performs in the real world.
Yeah some DS games were guilty of that too. It's rarely pleasant when it's thrown in there to supplement button controls at certain points.
LegendofJoe
Member
This is where your argument falls apart. The system has yet to release and you are already writing off the potential of the touch screen controller. That is the definition of selection bias.
That would be disappointing, there is some money to be made there so maybe someone will find a way to make it happen.
Graphics Horse
Member
Yeah if it's possible, someone might make something.
I brought up an idea where you could have a 3rd party piece of hardware which sends your PS3/360 video signal to the Wii U pad and control inputs back into the USB port. I think that would be an interesting product but Nintendo wouldn't be too pleased.
Gemüsepizza
Member
Why should I buy something which only has "potential", but is not actually showing something which totally blows my mind? The touchpad is almost half the price of the Wii U! Just imagine what specs the Wii U could have had, if they made the touchpad optional.
plagiarize
Banned
i wouldn't read *anything* into that comment.Gemüsepizza;43118521 said:
however, we can predict that Blops 2 on Wii U will be at least a full 720p using some facts. according to digital foundry MW3 (and other COD titles) run at 1024 x 600 on 360 because of the 10 MB of eDRAM. on PS3 it runs at that resolution because of the limited fill rates of the RSX. we know the Wii U has much more eDRAM than the 360 and a better GPU than the 360 (which has a better GPU than the PS3).
since the Wii U has neither of the bottlenecks reportedly forcing MW3 to be sub 720p, it seems like a safe prediction to make that it will be 720p on the system. of course, that doesn't mean it won't still be sub 720p, but it's a pretty supportable position until the pixel counters get eyes on.
i think any mention of 'full HD' with reference to sequels to games that appeared on the Wii should only be taken to mean 'it won't be in SD like it was on the Wii!' unless it's come straight from a recognised source that has a grasp of such things. a company rep is not the sort of person to trust. full HD could mean 'not sub HD like on 360 and PS3'. yes, TV manufacturers use it to mean 1080p, but i can't think of any examples of game developers saying their game is 'full HD' when it's 1080p. they say 1080p.
Graphics Horse
Member
Gemüsepizza;43118917 said:
Two Wii Us duct taped together?
LegendofJoe
Member
Gemüsepizza;43118917 said:
Taking advantage of increased graphical processing abilities of a console is just "potential" too until someone actually does it. What's the difference between that and a talented developer making a fantastic game that makes great use of the Upad?
edit: Also, you can't "show" great utlilization of a controller that is "mindblowing." You have to experience it in person. That is a drawback to focusing on gameplay input over output as Nintendo does. It is harder to show people as you say the Wow factor to get people excited about what you can do with the system.
Gemüsepizza;43118917 said:
If the gamepad were optional it would not be supported. See: Move and Kinect. Even if they had gone this route, they would likely still have been easily beaten by Microsoft and Sony due to those two releasing a year later at a large loss compared to Nintendo's day 1 profit. Personally (this is MY opinion, I'm not trying to convince anyone else to have it so save your flaming) I'm glad that Nintendo is kind of shaking things up a bit. I already have a solid gaming PC and will likely have a PS4 as well, I don't really need a third gaming console that will do the exact same thing as those two, but to a lesser extent. It will be fun to see what devs can come up with for the gamepad.
plagiarize
Banned
Gemüsepizza;43118917 said:
you don't have to. but at this point every next gen console is just potential. at some point they will become real products. i'm not going to crap on someone for wanting to wait to see what the system can really do before buying it, but then i'm the sort of person who buys consoles year 1 anyway.
the potential of the PS3 and 360 were not seen in their first years, and the same will likely be true of other systems. yes, it's a gamble that doesn't always pay off for me, but my first year experience with systems is usually pretty positive. it wasn't the first year of the Wii, 360 or PS3 that was the most disappointing that's for sure.
DeuceGamer
Member
I agree I doubt anyone really knows, especially since we don't know how real the numbers are that have been provided. That said, I could see some of the "modding" scene come up with some type of mod to increase the signal.
It will likely come down to these things. Is there a large enough perceived need that a mod is necessary? How difficult is it to increase the signal? How costly would it be? It really shouldn't affect me, but I hope we see these types of mods.
Gemüsepizza;43118917 said:
Yeah, it could've been like the PS4 and XBox3 and your PC. But why not just buy a PS4 or XBox3 or PC? Why do people insist that every single console maker has to spend every penny cramming as much theoretical performance in at the expense of all else? Why do you want four different devices doing exactly the same thing, playing exactly the same games in exactly the same way? Am I the only one who's glad that Nintendo is trying to actually do something unique, is trying to provide a different approach in an industry full of risk averse cookie-cutter games that are designed more than anything else to look like they're fun to play, with actually being fun to play a seeming irrelevance? Am I the only one who's happy that they're providing a different option in an industry where even Resident Evil has turned into a fucking Gears of Uncharted clone?
phosphor112
Banned
It's clear it doesn't but do you think Nintendo will sell a controller at break even? No, they'll "inflate" the price to make some profit. They'll be producing these just enough for people to buy one, but you can't have more than two per console so they have to balance production and logistic costs and make a moderate profit on it too.
Maybe he'd like to see a nintendo game that has lots of power behind it? IIRC, Nintendo games were great before they had a wii mote or anything else "gimmicky."
Maybe he realizes that 3rd party devs no longer want to invest much time or money on "exclusive" features or different input methods. Hell, PC games hardly have proper controller support sometimes!
tkscz
Member
I want to make sure I'm correct about this, so BG or someone who is better with Hardware correct me if I'm incorrect.
The purpose of the MCM is to make it so that instead of splitting the Voltage between the CPU and GPU, they get the same amount of voltage.
I remember when Iwata announced that the highest Voltage would be 75watts (and at average was 45), everyone guessed that the GPU would receive about 15 watts and CPU about 10 watts. Now that we know that they are both on an MCM, does this mean that they receive 25 watts instead?
The purpose of the MCM is to make it so that instead of splitting the Voltage between the CPU and GPU, they get the same amount of voltage.
I remember when Iwata announced that the highest Voltage would be 75watts (and at average was 45), everyone guessed that the GPU would receive about 15 watts and CPU about 10 watts. Now that we know that they are both on an MCM, does this mean that they receive 25 watts instead?
Nope, for one thing voltage and wattage are different. There is a slight reduction in power consumption (wattage) from having the CPU and GPU on the same MCM, but it's nothing major. There are two main benefits. Firstly, cooling the system is simpler, as there's only one chip putting out the bulk of the heat. Secondly, the latency between the CPU and GPU (and importantly the latency between the CPU and the eDRAM on the GPU) is reduced significantly.
tkscz
Member
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
This very much sounds like a Nintendo thing to do.