Support NeoGAF

[H_Prestige]

Tell that to the Vita. Sales numbers will control this gen far more than the previous one.

Also 3DS had sold 22m in the same amount of time, with only 1 holiday season.

That...just proves my point. DS was the dominant platform for developers last gen so they naturally followed up on the 3DS. Then Nintendo just had to go to Capcom and get MH and it was game, set, match. This wasn't decided by hardware sales numbers. The devs weren't just waiting on the sidelines for sales numbers to come in, they had to make a bet beforehand. Keep in mind, with the vita/3ds analogy, the ps4/720 is like the 3ds and the wii u is the vita.

Now in some universe where the 3DS ended up bombing and the Vita became the fastest selling system of all time, then sure, devs would have to change ship. And if ps4/720 literally sell nothing while wii u ends up selling 15 million/year, then sure, wii u would suddenly start getting a lot of development. But these are ludicrous scenarios. The reality is that Sony and MS have already got major developers making ps4/720 games, while nothing indicates Nintendo having major third parties on board the wii u. So you have to make next gen predictions within that context.

 

[lwilliams3]

Unless the GPU and eDram are packing an army of bandwidth ignoring purple Pikmin I'm pretty sure the dream of WiiU easily handling ports from the 360/PS3 are out the window (even if possible... would any publisher dedicate the money?) and of receiving anything more than the occasional pity port from Durango/Orbis. You're talking about not only a lacking CPU, but a GPU that has to fight for very limited memory bandwidth. There's only so much 32MB eDram is going to be able to do to help in a memory sense.

And because of that the GPU will be cockblocked. If it had any true potential for general purpose code... this didn't help. So limited CPU, limited GPU because of low bandwidth DDR3. An esoteric design by any stretch. And probably not suitable for much more than Nintendo's greatest hits.

Most devs aren't going to have the time or money to tailor their games around the WiiU's strengths and faults.

Actually, general code may be one area that the Wii U's CPU is designed to do very well in. It is other things that are most likely the problem, and those tasks should be easier to offset to the GPU than general code is. If those same tasks are also offset to Durango/PS4's GPU, that could make downports easier.

 

[TunaLover]

It helps that the CPU and GPU share the same chipset? In Iwata ask they said it was one of the most complex task because it´s hard to spot if heat problems comes CPU or GPU, but they manage to get both components working together without heat problems, they also stressed that the latency between boths components was extremely low.

 

[GhostTrick]

That...just proves my point. DS was the dominant platform for developers last gen so they naturally followed up on the 3DS. Then Nintendo just had to go to Capcom and get MH and it was game, set, match. This wasn't decided by hardware sales numbers. The devs weren't just waiting on the sidelines for sales numbers to come in, they had to make a bet beforehand.

Now in some universe where the 3DS ended up bombing and the Vita became the fastest selling system of all time, then sure, devs would have to change ship. And if ps4/720 literally sell nothing while wii u ends up selling 15 million/year, then sure, wii u would suddenly start getting a lot of development. But these are ludicrous scenarios.

Keep in mind, with the vita/3ds analogy above, the ps4/720 is like the 3ds and the wii u is the vita.

In term of 3rd party support it sounds like pretty much.
PS4/720 being more like 3DS/3DS XL and Wii U being Vita.
Sales wise well...
I could see it being otherwise. I don't mean PS4/720 will sell bad, but less than Wii U. Now, developpers could have a bigger userbase considering PS4/720 could be similar. Each one selling less than Wii U, but making games for both being viable. It sounds pretty clear that Wii U is in a Wii situation again.
Maybe less worse in term of hardware, maybe worse in term of sales. But kinda the same 3rd party wise.

 

[TheGuardian]

First of all, CPU tech isn't going to stay still for next gen, even with all the help GPUs can potentially give, CPUs will have tons of work to do, and thankfully that should give the same push to AI, physics, gameplay, etc that this gen had (and if you think that only graphics improved since the ps2/xbox days, you should read up on some GDC papers).
If the Wii U cpu can't deal with the workload a current gen game has, it will in no way be able to do it for a next gen title.

Regarding the GPU, feature set is only half the story, and performance levels determine the types of techniques that are feasible. Given what we've seen so far, it appears to be completely impossible to make a moderately complex game using the same methods as we're seeing in UE4 for example.
Now you could argue that developers would simply do it the PC way, and build the game to the lowest spec (WiiU) and then add bells and whistles for the highest, but exclusive developers obviously won't do that, and I'm not seeing Ubisoft/Activision/EA/etc wanting their games to be looking/behaving like last gen games compared to the next Halo for example.

 

[shinra-bansho]

It's not about installed base numbers; it's about audiences within those numbers.

An audience of a million within an installed base of 10M is more valuable than an audience of 200K in a 40M installed base.

Sure, CPU may be less used for next gen.

I think he's actually saying the opposite.

 

[GhostTrick]

First of all, CPU tech isn't going to stay still for next gen, even with all the help GPUs can potentially give, CPUs will have tons of work to do, and thankfully that should give the same push to AI, physics, gameplay, etc that this gen had (and if you think that only graphics improved since the ps2/xbox days, you should read up on some GDC papers).
If the Wii U cpu can't deal with the workload a current gen game has, it will in no way be able to do it for a next gen title.

Regarding the GPU, feature set is only half the story, and performance levels determine the types of techniques that are feasible. Given what we've seen so far, it appears to be completely impossible to make a moderately complex game using the same methods as we're seeing in UE4 for example.
Now you could argue that developers would simply do it the PC way, and build the game to the lowest spec (WiiU) and then add bells and whistles for the highest, but exclusive developers obviously won't do that, and I'm not seeing Ubisoft/Activision/EA/etc wanting there games to be looking/behaving like last gen games compared to the next Halo for example.

Sure, CPU may be less used for next gen.
But what if Wii U would have to use GPGPU to compete with PS4720 CPU ? What would be left for GPU ?

 

[wsippel]

Sure, it achieves 960GFLOPs exactly.
But it's drawing 80W. Which is more than what the entire Wii U could draw. (75W max iirc, maybe less because of ineffiency.)

Cut the clock speed in half and you're down to 20W. The Wii U GPU is clocked a bit higher than that, but RV740 is also a 2009 part. Chips tend to get smaller and more efficient over time, even on the same node.

I don't expect 640 SUs. Just pointing out that it is possible. We don't even know the node to begin with. My money is on 40nm, but it could be 32nm for all we know.

 

[Twilight Princess]

This is totally irrelevant. Do you think publishers are holding off on next gen development to see how the consoles sell? They're already designing games on ps4/720 dev kits, not wii u kits, so that battle has already been decided. It's kind of how ps3 had all this support before it even launched. Its sales numbers didn't change anything.

The wii u is just a port machine. For the devs sticking with ps360, wii u is an additional platform to port to, if it makes business sense. For the devs already moving on to ps4/720, wii is an additional platform to port to, if it is technically possible and makes business sense. The wii u won't get much more support than that, and this is all nintendo's doing.

I guess games like zombiu and Rayman legends are developed on ps720 dev kits? Can you give me some examples of the games already being developed on ps720?

 

[z0m3le]

That...just proves my point. DS was the dominant platform for developers last gen so they naturally followed up on the 3DS. Then Nintendo just had to go to Capcom and get MH and it was game, set, match. This wasn't decided by hardware sales numbers. The devs weren't just waiting on the sidelines for sales numbers to come in, they had to make a bet beforehand. Keep in mind, with the vita/3ds analogy, the ps4/720 is like the 3ds and the wii u is the vita.

Now in some universe where the 3DS ended up bombing and the Vita became the fastest selling system of all time, then sure, devs would have to change ship. And if ps4/720 literally sell nothing while wii u ends up selling 15 million/year, then sure, wii u would suddenly start getting a lot of development. But these are ludicrous scenarios. The reality is that Sony and MS have already got major developers making ps4/720 games, while nothing indicates Nintendo having major third parties on board the wii u. So you have to make next gen predictions within that context.

My Scenario isn't ludicrous at all. 360 became the lead platform last gen, even though the PS2 was the previous leader, it wasn't extraordinarily beyond PS3's sales numbers in 2007/2008 but it didn't matter to developers.

The 360 sold 10m in it's first year alone on the market, and I believe PS3 sold less than that in it's first year on the market, in a much stronger economy. My numbers might not be completely likely, but if Nintendo does expect to sell 5.5m by the end of march, I see no reason why it couldn't hit 15-20m in the following 15 months. Especially being the only next gen console on the market (knock it's graphics or whatever you want, but it's still not as saturated as last gen consoles, so it should sell better)

These numbers do plug into a 30-40m current gen market at the end of june 2014. Which is all I've been saying.

 

[GhostTrick]

Cut the clock speed in half and you're down to 20W. The Wii U GPU is clocked a bit higher than that, but RV740 is also a 2009 part. Chips tend to get smaller and more efficient over time, even on the same node.

I don't expect 640 SUs. Just pointing out that it is possible. We don't even know the node to begin with. My money is on 40nm, but it could be 32nm for all we know.

Wouldn't cut the clock half means cut power drawing half too, so 40W ?

 

[TheGuardian]

Sure, CPU may be less used for next gen.
But what if Wii U would have to use GPGPU to compete with PS4720 CPU ? What would be left for GPU ?

My point is that even if the CPU/GPU power balance changes, the CPU is going to have more stuff to do. And the Wii U can't even handle the current work.

And yes, like you say, dreams of having the GPU helping out are nice, but you would have even less GPU power to use for graphics.

 

[wsippel]

Wouldn't cut the clock half means cut power drawinghalf too, so 40W ?

No. Doubling the clock speed quadruples the power consumption.

 

[AdventureRacing]

My Scenario isn't ludicrous at all. 360 became the lead platform last gen, even though the PS2 was the previous leader, it wasn't extraordinarily beyond PS3's sales numbers in 2007/2008 but it didn't matter to developers.

The 360 sold 10m in it's first year alone on the market, and I believe PS3 sold less than that in it's first year on the market, in a much stronger economy. My numbers might not be completely likely, but if Nintendo does expect to sell 5.5m by the end of march, I see no reason why it couldn't hit 15-20m in the following 15 months. Especially being the only next gen console on the market (knock it's graphics or whatever you want, but it's still not as saturated as last gen consoles, so it should sell better)

That's a completely different situation. The 360 was a huge step up from the previous generation and devs saw that as a chance to establish a new market for themselves. The 360 started out poorly but still got a lot of 3rd party support because it was the first new powerful console.

360 didn't suddenly become the lead platform because it had sold 10 million pieces of hardware. By that time that time the ball was already rolling. Most games nowadays take more than 2 years to make so if they were making the decision to support a console based on it's first 24 months you wouldn't see the games until after the console had been out for 4 years. These decisions need to be made before they can see that information.

 

[Mastperf]

That's a completely different situation. The 360 was a huge step up from the previous generation and devs saw that as a chance to establish a new market for themselves. The 360 started out poorly but still got a lot of 3rd party support because it was the first new powerful console.

360 didn't suddenly become the lead platform because it had sold 10 million pieces of hardware. By that time that time the ball was already rolling. Most games nowadays take more than 2 years to make so if they were making the decision to support a console based on it's first 24 months you wouldn't see the games until after the console had been out for 4 years. These decisions need to be made before they can see that information.

Not to mention the 360 development tools were the best in the business and made the generational transition less painful.

 

[GhostTrick]

No. Doubling the clock speed quadruples the power consumption.

You sure ?
That could actually be a good news for Wii U. So, 375Mhz would draw only 20W ? So that would means 480GFLOPs if the GPU has 640SU.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Not to mention the 360 development tools were the best in the business and made the generational transition less painful.

Yep i have no doubt that was a big reason and is another thing that may end up hurting 3rd party development on wii U.

 

[Van Owen]

BTW I love that everyone here knows exactly how this generation is going to turn out, do you guys realize that the majority of gamers won't even realize that there is a graphical difference between last gen and next gen. They might assume one is there, but they generally won't see it. Just look at all the people who thought PS2 was super powerful for it's generation.

lol

You're delusional.

 

[BearPawB]

Tell that to the Vita. Sales numbers will control this gen far more than the previous one.

Also 3DS had sold 22m in the same amount of time, with only 1 holiday season.

So while I'm not claiming that Wii U will sell 20m in the next 18months, I am saying it's possible that it could.

BTW I love that everyone here knows exactly how this generation is going to turn out, do you guys realize that the majority of gamers won't even realize that there is a graphical difference between last gen and next gen. They might assume one is there, but they generally won't see it. Just look at all the people who thought PS2 was super powerful for it's generation.

Vita development was always bad, it was bad before it came out. It is worse now.
It was bad before it didn't sell well.

game development takes time. They werent just sitting on their hands thinking, "hmm lets see how this sells first".

 

[Rolf NB]

No. Doubling the clock speed quadruples the power consumption.

Only if you have to increase voltage to reach those clocks.
Active logic power consumption scales linearly with clock speed, quadratically with voltage.

 

[AdventureRacing]

lol

You're delusional.

I won't say i agree but i do think that consumers won't notice the difference nearly as much as we do and might not really care that much. The graphical difference between the wii U and the other next gen consoles are not going to be what holds it back imo (besides causing it to not get much 3rd party support).

 

[BearPawB]

I won't say i agree but i do think that consumers won't notice the difference nearly as much as we do and might not really care that much. The graphical difference between the wii U and the other next gen consoles are not going to be what holds it back imo (besides causing it to not get much 3rd party support).

Fact: you don't know what the graphical difference is

 

[AdventureRacing]

Fact: you don't know what the graphical difference is

Fact: It doesn't matter.

 

[Rolf NB]

Sure, it achieves 960GFLOPs exactly.
But it's drawing 80W. Which is more than what the entire Wii U could draw. (75W max iirc, maybe less because of ineffiency.)

Wouldn't cut the clock half means cut power drawing half too, so 40W ?

Anandtech measured 33W for the whole system running a game. GPU power budget is most likely 25W or less.

 

[Coolwhip]

Fact: you don't know what the graphical difference is

Seen PC games?

 

[GhostTrick]

Anandtech measured 33W for the whole system running a game. GPU power budget is most likely 25W or less.

Running New Super Mario Bros U. It's not the same thing. And what I meant, is the maximum Wii U could draw, not what it's drawing in a 2D game.

 

[BearPawB]

Seen PC games?

PC games which are hamstrung by conforming to 7 year old hardware.
Most PC games are multiplatform. Imagine how great Far Cry 3 would look if it was developed exclusively for modern hardware.

There will be a jump in graphical quality. A 720 that is a powerful modern machine will have games developed exclusively to take advantage of that hardware. No need to make concessions such as "we have to make it run on older graphics cards".

720 games are not just going to be current PC games. The next gen of consoles could dramatically change things.

 

[kinggroin]

Gamecube's easier(to code for) and more powerful hardware (compared to PS2) didn't win over 3rd parties.

If Wii U sells 20M before the second half of 2014 while the other new consoles are hitting 5-10m a piece. I think you will see every effort of keeping development on PS360 or porting their titles across XB3/PS4/Wii U. Because hitting a 30-40m console base is far more likely to return investments than 10-20m.

It's exactly why PS3's architecture was worked on so hard after it's release. Because 360's market wasn't big enough at the time to support the larger budgets that the HD games were seeing.

The GameCube still got its share of 3rd party support. Probably more than the Wii u will see IMO.

 

[Coolwhip]

PC games which are hamstrung by conforming to 7 year old hardware.
Most PC games are multiplatform. Imagine how great Far Cry 3 would look if it was developed exclusively for modern hardware.

There will be a jump in graphical quality. A 720 that is a powerful modern machine will have games developed exclusively to take advantage of that hardware. No need to make concessions such as "we have to make it run on older graphics cards".

720 games are not just going to be current PC games. The next gen of consoles could dramatically change things.

We will see, but I wouldn't get your hopes up too much.

 

[Rolf NB]

Running New Super Mario Bros U. It's not the same thing. And what I meant, is the maximum Wii U could draw, not what it's drawing in a 2D game.

It's still rendering polygons, so that's "real" work for the GPU.
I haven't seen measurements for more graphically complex stuff yet, but I don't really expect to see much more than a 10% bump. That's not how it works.

 

[BearPawB]

We will see, but I wouldn't get your hopes up too much.

And maybe not the first run of games. All i know is Halo 4 is beautiful. And that has low res textures, 30 fps, and many other graphical issues. And it is beautiful. I can't imagine what Halo 5 is going to look like.

 

[AdventureRacing]

And maybe not the first run of games. All i know is Halo 4 is beautiful. And that has low res textures, 30 fps, and many other graphical issues. And it is beautiful. I can't imagine what Halo 5 is going to look like.

It's going to look spectacular and is already one of my most anticipated games without knowing anything about it lol. Still not sure that regular consumers will notice the difference as much as we do.

 

[BearPawB]

It's going to look spectacular and is already one of my most anticipated games without knowing anything about it lol. Still not sure that regular consumers will notice the difference as much as we do.

I see your point. Graphics alone are not enough. Vita has proven this. But there are also very few games you can compare across vita and 3ds. Wii U and 720 are both going to have call of duty games. I think people will notice a difference.

 

[lwilliams3]

That...just proves my point. DS was the dominant platform for developers last gen so they naturally followed up on the 3DS. Then Nintendo just had to go to Capcom and get MH and it was game, set, match. This wasn't decided by hardware sales numbers. The devs weren't just waiting on the sidelines for sales numbers to come in, they had to make a bet beforehand. Keep in mind, with the vita/3ds analogy, the ps4/720 is like the 3ds and the wii u is the vita.

Now in some universe where the 3DS ended up bombing and the Vita became the fastest selling system of all time, then sure, devs would have to change ship. And if ps4/720 literally sell nothing while wii u ends up selling 15 million/year, then sure, wii u would suddenly start getting a lot of development. But these are ludicrous scenarios. The reality is that Sony and MS have already got major developers making ps4/720 games, while nothing indicates Nintendo having major third parties on board the wii u. So you have to make next gen predictions within that context.

We don't know what is going on in 2013 with the Wii U yet, but I believe it would be safe to assume that there will be alot of cross-generational games in development. The userbase of the PS4/Durango is currently "zero" and great success for them is not a given. Early "Next-gen" games will likely also have current-gen versions to ensure that they can get a profit. The Wii U will get at least some ports since it at least has a young userbase.

My Scenario isn't ludicrous at all. 360 became the lead platform last gen, even though the PS2 was the previous leader, it wasn't extraordinarily beyond PS3's sales numbers in 2007/2008 but it didn't matter to developers.

The 360 sold 10m in it's first year alone on the market, and I believe PS3 sold less than that in it's first year on the market, in a much stronger economy. My numbers might not be completely likely, but if Nintendo does expect to sell 5.5m by the end of march, I see no reason why it couldn't hit 15-20m in the following 15 months. Especially being the only next gen console on the market (knock it's graphics or whatever you want, but it's still not as saturated as last gen consoles, so it should sell better)

These numbers do plug into a 30-40m current gen market at the end of june 2014. Which is all I've been saying.

It should be noted that the reason why some things ended up the way it did this generation was due to:

1) Publishers believing that Nintendo will not do well.

2) Publishers believing that the PS3 will do very well.

When it was obvious that the PS3 (nor 360) was not going to sell like the PS2, they already were deep in development with those systems and did not seriously consider the Wii to quickly make good games for it. Some third-party companies adjusted their strategy to go multi-platform with a higher focus on western games to get a profit (example: Square-enix, Capcom). Some companies began to focus alot more on portables (example: Square-enix, alot of Japanese companies.) Some companies ended up getting screwed (Factor 5, Hudson). While there were some third-parties that did some games for the Wii (example: Ubisoft, Activision), alot of them miss the boat and the Wii grew up without a strong core-gamer userbase.

Microsoft, along with having a strong relationship with PC publishers, was able to get those multi-platform games from the PS3 to get a good library In retrospect, though, I believe alot of publishers would have not treated the Wii the say they did early on, and is probably why we are seeing more ports for the Wii U so far. Even though they some of them are unstable in performance, at least they are there so that the more hardcore audience can grow.

 

[AdventureRacing]

I see your point. Graphics alone are not enough. Vita has proven this. But there are also very few games you can compare across vita and 3ds. Wii U and 720 are both going to have call of duty games. I think people will notice a difference.

Actually the difference between the 3DS and vita is very noticeable i think and it's further compounded by the screen looking much better. It's a lot harder to get this across to the consumer with handhelds though (and it faces other problems which are holding it back).

I have no doubt people will notice the difference i just don't think it will be anywhere near as noticeable as the difference between the wii CODs and the 360/PS3 CODs. In this case they will look like watered down ports instead of a completely different game.

 

[bgassassin]

I'm not sure if was specifically dual-core, but wsippel did say that he found some evidence that the Wii U has a multi-core ARM processor

Thanks.

C has been pretty special I think, if you look back to the Bird demo. That thing was gorgeous and rendering full scenes to both the TV and GamePad. Whether the console is now weaker than that remains to be seen.

I wonder if the costs for the GamePad just blew out and they decided to adjust down some other features.

IMO the problem is that this was the worst presented console from reveal to launch in console history. At least PS3 had a good E3 '05.

I don't remember where I read it now but I remember reading that the Wii U would be the hardest to develop for out of the Wii U , PS4 & Xbox Next. with the Xbox Next being the easiest.

IGN article surveying devs. Wii U was hardest because of the gamepad and Xbox 3 is supposed to win next gen according to them if I remember that part correctly.

 

[AdventureRacing]

IMO the problem is that this was the worst presented console from reveal to launch in console history. At least PS3 had a good E3 '05.

It all falls back on nintendo really. If they wanted to avoid this sort of thing they should have had something to show of some of their more graphically intensive games (like a zelda or 3D mario even if they are a ways off). 2D mario doesn't show off the capability of the platform and pikmin looks like a game that hasn't been made ground up for the system.

 

[Angel Whispers]

How do you know every engine is running on the wii u? Is SE's new luminous engine going to run on it?

It could very well happen and there's a greater chance of that than not, Mr Prestige. Epic confirmed that it is UE4 capable in July - their words being that developers can make UE4 games for the Wii U if they wished to, but they themselves had no plans at the time, so all this talk of it being 'on par with/less than PS360/2005 tech/7th Gen' should've been killed once and for all back then (8th Gen is here; 8th Gen IS the Current Gen). Truthfully, Epic and UE4 aren't and won't be THAT big a deal, anyway, but that it's capable is still welcome news. We also know that it runs Cry Engine 3 'beautifully', has the new Unity Engine, Havok and also Frostbite 2. As for Luminous, it's scalable, from PCs to mobile and cloud gaming, to the iPad (presumably version 2, as version 3 had been out for a few months and they had been working on that engine for some time) as well as other tablets - that has been reported with quotes at CVG and GameTrailers, among other sites, so unless members here believe that mobiles are currently more powerful, it's not unthinkable to say that the Wii U can have it (in the same quotes, he even says possibly the PS3, FFS...). The 8th Generation WON'T be defined by a giant leap in power and graphics, and all those people expecting one can should prepare to be disappointed because it's clear that it isn't in the industry's interests, and the desire for one isn't as strong as Epic and many members here want to believe. A lot of people are carrying on as if it isn't future-proof or as if it won't get anything once these imaginary, unconfirmed consoles drop, and it's rather pathetic.

 

[z0m3le]

My point is that even if the CPU/GPU power balance changes, the CPU is going to have more stuff to do. And the Wii U can't even handle the current work.

And yes, like you say, dreams of having the GPU helping out are nice, but you would have even less GPU power to use for graphics.

What you are saying is reasonable if we knew exactly how the CPU performs and could tell how next gen is going to use them, because xenon and cell out perform the rumored jaguar cores in a lot of the same ways, though enough jaguar cores will make up for the low clock speed, the lack of simd performance would certainly hurt ports from last gen too, which is why gpgpu is so important whether Wii U's gpu does it well or not.

 

[kinggroin]

Just being able to support an engine's feature set doesn't mean the Wii U will now get the latest games based on it at anywhere near the same fidelity as its PC/Next-Gen cousins.


Edit: Just saying before someone makes a thread...

 

[H_Prestige]

It could very well happen and there's a greater chance of that than not, Mr Prestige. Epic confirmed that it is UE4 capable in July - their words being that developers can make UE4 games for the Wii U if they wished to, but they themselves had no plans at the time, so all this talk of it being 'on par with/less than PS360/2005 tech/7th Gen' should've been killed once and for all back then (8th Gen is here; 8th Gen IS the Current Gen). Truthfully, Epic and UE4 aren't and won't be THAT big a deal, anyway, but that it's capable is still welcome news. We also know that it runs Cry Engine 3 'beautifully', has the new Unity Engine, Havok and also Frostbite 2. As for Luminous, it's scalable, from PCs to mobile and cloud gaming, to the iPad (presumably version 2, as version 3 had been out for a few months and they had been working on that engine for some time) as well as other tablets - that has been reported with quotes at CVG and GameTrailers, among other sites, so unless members here believe that mobiles are currently more powerful, it's not unthinkable to say that the Wii U can have it (in the same quotes, he even says possibly the PS3, FFS...). The 8th Generation WON'T be defined by a giant leap in power and graphics, and all those people expecting one can should prepare to be disappointed because it's clear that it isn't in the industry's interests, and the desire for one isn't as strong as Epic and many members here want to believe. A lot of people are carrying on as if it isn't future-proof or as if it won't get anything once these imaginary, unconfirmed consoles drop, and it's rather pathetic.

See, this is why I don't put much stock into the "scalable engine" arguments. Since UE4 games can run on smartphones and tablets, does that make them more capable game machines than a ps3 or 360? I'm pretty sure the raw technical specs are still king in determining what a machine can or can't do. It reminds of the 3DS with its modern GPU functions, yet the games end up looking like psp games.

 

[onQ123]

Thanks.



IMO the problem is that this was the worst presented console from reveal to launch in console history. At least PS3 had a good E3 '05.



IGN article surveying devs. Wii U was hardest because of the gamepad and Xbox 3 is supposed to win next gen according to them if I remember that part correctly.

Yeah I think that was it.

Too much going on can't remember all the when & wheres anymore.

 

[kinggroin]

See, this is why I don't put much stock into the "scalable engine" arguments. Since UE4 games can run on smartphones and tablets, does that make them more capable game machines than a ps3 or 360? I'm pretty sure the raw technical specs are still king in determining what a machine can or can't do. It reminds of the 3DS with its modern GPU functions, yet the games end up looking like psp games.

You're right. I actually just posted the same-ish thing a post or two up.

The bolded. No.

 

[GhostTrick]

It reminds of the 3DS with its modern GPU functions, yet the games end up looking like psp games.

Sorry, but no. I'd even say Non. NON.
There's some games on 3DS that looks beyond what PSP could do. Mario Kart 7 being 60 FPS with 3D and 8 players online. Resident Evil Revelations. SSFIV 3D in 3D (or 60FPS in 2D). EX Troopers. Kid Icarus.
Those are games that look beyond PSP, with a lot of bonus, like being in 3D, or having a stable, even good framerate. Even the modern functions can be easily spotted in games, with techniques PSP couldn't use.
Unfortunately, I can't say so about Wii U.

 

[lwilliams3]

See, this is why I don't put much stock into the "scalable engine" arguments. Since UE4 games can run on smartphones and tablets, does that make them more capable game machines than a ps3 or 360? I'm pretty sure the raw technical specs are still king in determining what a machine can or can't do. It reminds of the 3DS with its modern GPU functions, yet the games end up looking like psp games.

Check out SSF4 and RE:Revelations. The thing is that alot of publisher are not going to push high-end graphics on a portable system aside from ports.

Speaking of ports, next-gen downports to the Wii U may end up being some of the best looking games for the system. Some dev teams will try their best to port everything down to the system, and may find some tricks or features that will make it work.

 

[Angel Whispers]

It all falls back on nintendo really. If they wanted to avoid this sort of thing they should have had something to show of some of their more graphically intensive games (like a zelda or 3D mario even if they are a ways off). 2D mario doesn't show off the capability of the platform and pikmin looks like a game that hasn't been made ground up for the system.

Let's just forget that they are also pushing the 3DS while expanding. Dealing with losses for the first time in 30 years was an issue, too. The point of the bird and Zelda demos was to reassure fans that the games will come. Their philosophy is also very different - they care that you enjoy the games; it seems that more are bothered about how many hairs will be on Mario's moustache, and whether he will he have more for Movember. This is the company that made Yoshi's Island when the likes of Donkey Kong Country existed at the time. Also, it's as if people forget that the Dreamcast had Chu Chu Rocket when there was Soul Calibur, or that the XBox 360 has Akai Katana in an age of Skyrims, Assassin's Creeds and The Witcher 2. Photorealism isn't important in gaming; Furthermore, not every game NEEDS to push the limits of graphics capabilities.

Also, for those saying that "the Wii U will be ignored when the next Sony and Microsoft consoles drop", you're wrong. Cross-platform publishers are on board already - Over a dozen in the launch window alone. It's also clear that you've ignored how many are commenting on its indie-friendly nature. The more that can get on board from that side and become familiar with the Wii U and Nintendo consoles, the better - If they can keep that up, then by the time the 9th Gen arrives, they could be in an even stronger position.

 

[TheGuardian]

What you are saying is reasonable if we knew exactly how the CPU performs and could tell how next gen is going to use them, because xenon and cell out perform the rumored jaguar cores in a lot of the same ways, though enough jaguar cores will make up for the low clock speed, the lack of simd performance would certainly hurt ports from last gen too, which is why gpgpu is so important whether Wii U's gpu does it well or not.

Yes, offloading stuff to the GPU is going to be a major trend going forward, but using your own example, a Jaguar core is a lot more powerful than whatever is inside the WiiU.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Seems I stirred up the pot a little it that post. Just for clarification, it was never meant to indict anybody. Hell, I really don't even dislike IGN. I only meant to show that there were a few specific and somewhat believable rumors or miscommunications that led people to raise their expectations a bit high.

He wasn't the "insider".

They were lherre, Ideaman, and arkam.

They were the closest things we had in WUST to actual sources.

And they generally just gave us base expectation with little to no detail. Because they didn't want to get fired. Notable goal. Most of us in those threads were going by what we had. Some of those expectations were obviously higher than reality. Some of them highly so. Bg really wasn't one of them. PS2 to their Xbox , and pure numbers that no one in their right mind would think Nintendo couldn't hit.

If you want to shit on someone shit on me for not lowering the bar further. For not always making sure they realized "Nintendo is crazy enough to completely forgo the numbers games in all arenas if it fits their ends." Shit on me for not saying "N64 with expansion pack versus GCN/Xbox." Instead of thinking it would see differences on the scale of an M2 over the N64.

Bg is cool. Apparently overzealous. But who in their right fucking mind would think any company would bottleneck their systems one defining feature in it's GPU by hamstringing it to anemic memory bandwidth?

I sure as fuck didn't.

So please guys. Just give it a rest. We're fucking idiots. I can quote a certain Nintendo loving mod who couldn't believe that shit. I can quote a Durante. People that aren't exactly stupid that were genuinely surprised. And most of them just used the metric of "bare minimum of what you'd expect out of a case that size."

It might be harder to get mad at me because I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm apparently insane enough to think Nintendo would try to hit a 2012 minimum in some respect.

Ah, I feel your pain, man. Thank you for giving these threads a good (and necessary) shot of humor. I tell yah, I had a feeling from the get go that all of our speculations would be in vain and Nintendo would do something completely off the wall (64-bit bus). It is impossible to get into the heads of those Kyoto folks. They're all A1 nut boys.

?

You're not disagreeing with what I said.



And I even said several times I wasn't an insider and that I was passing on what I learned/was told.

But I disagree on being overzealous.

Ah, BG! Hope all has been well. I have to applaud you from stepping away from GAF. It's something I could stand to do myself. You did make many positive contributions to the old threads and taught me a thing or two as well(steered me straight when my math was faulty). Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, much like Ideaman, some posters were seemingly unable to separate what was your own speculation from what you had heard. I think alot of the less tech savvy people put too much weight behind some of your analysis. I've felt compelled myself to correct a few here and there who have misquoted you in order to support their inflated idea of the Wii U's capabilities. And no, that blame should not rest on you. When I read your posts, it was quite obvious which parts were your opinion and which parts were you forwarding info from other sources. But then again, I probably spent too much time digging through all possible infos.

Admittedly however, I'm still trying to reconcile your (or was it wsippel's originally?) reports of what the early dev kits contained with what the final has shaped up to apparently be. I covered some of what I consider the likely explanations in my previous post (system specs were in flux, extra elbow room just in case), but what say you? Do you still believe that source which claimed 640 ALUs in the early dev kits was legit? If so, what do you think happened?

Thanks

Well, for the multipliers, from my very first message, i said it was closer to 2x than 5x. And one thing than i'm happy to see a lot people remember, is that i always included in this multiplier (flawed, we know it, but everyone is using those kind of measurement) the Gamepad screen. So even at launch, with some games, we're already witnessing, at the very least, a 1,5x xbox360 level of performances, with a xbox360ish content on the TV + 480p different 3D content on the gamepad, on certain sequences. Very close, and we'll reach the 2/2,5x figure i said back in February, it's a sure thing. It's the same for the multipliers pertaining to components, i said it was oscillating, depending on the hardware piece, between 2x and 4x i think. The 4X + all the back & forth discussions in the WUST 2 made that people understood well that the 4x was for the memory (4x 512mo). About the GPU, i haven't participated in your heated debates because i haven't GFLOP or ROP or other parameters numbers. Just that from what i've heard, it's relatively safe to assume that the GPU is capable of at least, around 2x what the Xbox360 GPU can do. Now does this 2x come from 2x more pure "raw power", or let's say 1,2x more power + 0,8x "faked" by the more modern architecture, features and effects, that aren't handled by Xbox360 and PS3 GPU's, i don't know.

For all these infos & guesses (for the GPU power in this case), i was reasonable and nothing was proven wrong, i stand proudly in my shoes on the contrary when i see for example what happened with Miiverse. However, i must say that i was pretty "Public Relationized" by all those infos around E3 2011 praising the system for its accessibility, its easiness, how it's quick to port current gen HD titles on it, etc. It seems it's not the case, and Wii U requires quite an amount of work and optimization of your development to take advantage of its characteristics.

Haha, there is no crime in being optimistic! Perhaps your sources did encounter difficulties at some point, but nothing worth mentioning, or they quickly realized how to overcome them. The multipliers thing I feared from the get go, because RAM bandwidth never seemed to be mentioned, and that stat seemed critical to performance. I have yet to see all the third party titles running for myself, but from what I've read and seen, it's still not all bad. So there really shouldn't be any shock. We all would like to have seen consistent frame rates, but it is launch after all. Deadlines were surely tight and conditions were constantly evolving w/ dev kits/sdks and such. I do believe the system capable of delivering on the promise of "Xbox 360 plus a little extra" quality graphics on the screen and another simultaneous viewpoint of decent complexity and lower resolution on the Gamepad.

Unfortunately, it seems this whole ease of development idea was premature. It didn't help that when it was revealed that Wii U had a tri core CPU, many assumed a modified Xenon. Then again, I think the initial optimism was started w/ the Vigil guys. They supposedly had their engine up pretty quickly. I am thinking perhaps the memory hierarchy of Wii U is better suited for certain types of games over others. Or perhaps certain programmers just had a better knack for data caching than others.

 

[Prez]

I really haven't been following this. I heard that the Wii U is underpowered. So how does its potential compare to Xbox 360 and PS3?

 

[H_Prestige]

If the subpar performance of all these 360 ports so far is the result of "lack of time" and "not getting to know the wii u hardware", should we also expect 360 to ps4 ports to have the same issues? I mean, no dev fully understands the ps4 yet, right?