Support NeoGAF

[KojiKnight]

You can have both. A unique controller with powerful hardware was what Nintendo was known for before the Wii. Nintendo put day 1 (or close to) profits as a top priority. They also crippled their engineers by focusing on low power draw and small form factor.

Nintendo has never been known for it's powerful hardware... You seem to be using the GCN as an example, but the GCN was also only a mildly powerful system and it's controller was hardly innovative. It was a Dual shock controller with the A button bigger and in the center.

I think what confuses people is in fact that in reality Nintendo HASN'T changed much, but rather the game industry changed a lot around them.

Go back as far as the NES/SNES, both were considerably underpowered for what developers wanted and PCs could do... The best games of both those generations only topped out their colleagues through additional hardware build into the carts (Super FX 1/2 chips, SDD-1, SPC700, SA-1, all different SNES co-processors built into carts to make up for the lack of SNES power, on the NES front there were MANY mappers that added additional ram or sound channels).

When Sony entered the console race, they too went with relatively cheap hardware aside from the CD-rom which is where they got their biggest advantage... They could store uncompressed textures and backgrounds in that huge space and that saved greatly on CPU. If anything N64 was the only generation where Nintendo put a lot into expensive CPU tech, but in return they cheaped out on memory. 4kb of texture memory was horrible, super high latency RDRAM also hampered the system dramatically.

 

[JordanN]

Nintendo has never been known for it's powerful hardware...

....

but the GCN was also only a mildly powerful system

These sentences are pretty contradicting. That, or you're skewing the word "power" to mean something that it's not. Is it really that hard to accept Nintendo use to make powerful systems? Ugh, I feel like I'm wasting my time.

 

[KojiKnight]

These are pretty contradicting. That, or you're skewing the word "power" to mean something that it's not.

I'm sorry if the qualifier "mildy" confuses you. I should have used the term "relative", as in for that generation it was "relatively" powerful... If only because the PS2 played by the same rules as the PS1... a conservative processor and graphics unit that instead existed to push a newer medium (DVDs). PS2 was one of the first DVD players to market.

The "power race" didn't TRULY begin till the PS3/360 generation. Then it was no longer enough (for Sony) to simply push a new format with conservative hardware, they had to be the best hardware and they pushed a very odd new processor architecture to get there and at a significant cost to boot.

Microsoft did the same, only less crazy architecture and without pushing a new media format which is why they could sell for less, but still charge more than the previous gen.

(edit) Let me put it another way... Sony and Microsoft changed the rules for the PS360 era. System hardware before then was always conservative. It was always "low wattage" (though that was a side effect of trying to keep consoles managable sizes). Compare the PS1 or PS2 power draw to a launch PS3 for a great example. Before that Sony played just as (if not more so) conservatively on hardware than Nintendo did!

Because this generation has gone on so long, people have convinced themselves this is how every generation of hardware has been, the "top tech battling each other out." But it's simply not true, every machine before this last generation (aside from maybe the x-box which had specs about the same level as a mid-range PC of the time) was underpowered compared to the tech available. They were built cheaply and (again, relatively) small.

 

[Projectjustice]

I'm sorry if the qualifier "mildy" confuses you. I should have used the term "relative", as in for that generation it was "relatively" powerful... If only because the PS2 played by the same rules as the PS1... a conservative processor and graphics unit that instead existed to push a newer medium (DVDs). PS2 was one of the first DVD players to market.

The "power race" didn't TRULY begin till the PS3/360 generation. Then it was no longer enough (for Sony) to simply push a new format with conservative hardware, they had to be the best hardware and they pushed a very odd new processor architecture to get there and at a significant cost to boot.

Microsoft did the same, only less crazy architecture and without pushing a new media format which is why they could sell for less, but still charge more than the previous gen.

Thats your opinion.

 

[Mastperf]

Nintendo has never been known for it's powerful hardware... You seem to be using the GCN as an example, but the GCN was also only a mildly powerful system and it's controller was hardly innovative. It was a Dual shock controller with the A button bigger and in the center.

I think what confuses people is in fact that in reality Nintendo HASN'T changed much, but rather the game industry changed a lot around them.

Go back as far as the NES/SNES, both were considerably underpowered for what developers wanted and PCs could do... The best games of both those generations only topped out their colleagues through additional hardware build into the carts (Super FX 1/2 chips, SDD-1, SPC700, SA-1, all different SNES co-processors built into carts to make up for the lack of SNES power, on the NES front there were MANY mappers that added additional ram or sound channels).

When Sony entered the console race, they too went with relatively cheap hardware aside from the CD-rom which is where they got their biggest advantage... They could store uncompressed textures and backgrounds in that huge space and that saved greatly on CPU. If anything N64 was the only generation where Nintendo put a lot into expensive CPU tech, but in return they cheaped out on memory. 4kb of texture memory was horrible, super high latency RDRAM also hampered the system dramatically.

Yes, they were. The Snes and N64 were most certainly powerful hardware for their time. The GC too was considered powerful and efficient. Before the Wii, Nintendo released consoles comparable to or better in many ways than the competition. Every console has issues and sacrifices (like 4kb of texture memory, super high latency RDRAM) but it doesn't mean they weren't comepetive tech. The "Ultra 64" was one of the most hyped systems ever with "The same tech used to render Jurassic Park."

 

[Skiesofwonder]

You can have both.

WiiU is already selling for a loss at $350, to compete with the 720/PS4 while keeping the Gamerpad could have potentially doubled the price.

A unique controller with powerful hardware was what Nintendo was known for before the Wii.

The uniqueness of the N64 and GameCube controller compared to the Wiimote and U Gamerpad are in two totally different leagues.

Nintendo put day 1 (or close to) profits as a top priority. They also crippled their engineers by focusing on low power draw and small form factor.

Nintendo has designed systems for day one profit way before the Wii/ WiiU, and the GameCube was also "hindered" by small form factor.

The WiiU pad is different but it's also the first Nintendo controller that I could have easily seen MS or Sony coming up with on their own. It really doesn't feel like typical Nintendo innovation and more an evolution of the DS tech and following current technology trends.

Same could be said for Wii, with Sony and Sega already developing motion control accessories way before the Wii. The Wii could also be considered an evolution of the Powerglove, while the 3DS could be considered an evolution of the Virtual Boy + (obviously) the DS. The WiiU is actually more of an evolution of what Nintendo developed with their GBA/GCN connectivity for PAC Man Vs./Crystal Chronicles then anything else (IMO).

It just seems like a resource hogging, low battery life controller that added unnecessarily to the cost of the system.

If you only want graphic and hardware advancements instead of input innovation, then sure. The Gamerpad is a perfectly suitable upgrade to how we play games, and has a lot of potential to create some really great new experiences. Potential being the key word here.

It took a lot of effort to releases a system that's only on-par or slightly above current gen consoles. Seriously, these systems are ancient compared to current tech.

A lot of effort? I doubt that. I'm sure it was pretty tough though to squeeze this technology together in such a small form while also having to deal with latency issues with the Gamerpad. I think people underestimate how big of a development that really is.

I'm sure I'll want one when 3d Mario, Zelda and Metroid Prime appear, but it's still gonna be a sore spot for me.
If Nintendo had made a system capable of current gen software at 1080p@30fps, I would have been content and considered it a nice in-between generation system. Instead, they seem to have made a system that needs special attention in order to match or (maybe to an extent) exceed what we currently have.

Would 1080p at 30fps really make for a better game then 720p at 30fps? I'm sure it would be nice, but I just don't really think putting resources into higher resolution capabilities is necessarily more important then providing potentially greater gaming input methods. We are talking about games here after all, and not movies.

 

[KojiKnight]

Yes, they were. The Snes and N64 were most certainly powerful hardware for their time. The GC too was considered powerful and efficient. Before the Wii, Nintendo released consoles comparable to or better in many ways than the competition. Every console has issues and sacrifices (like 4kb of texture memory, super high latency RDRAM) but it doesn't mean they weren't comepetive tech. The "Ultra 64" was one of the most hyped systems ever with "The same tech used to render Jurassic Park."

-sighs- No, the SNES was very WEAK hardware for the time and the N64 was definitely ambitious in the CPU front, they cheaped out HEAVILY on the various types of ram... compeltely bottlenecking all of the good parts and making it very difficult to program for.

People are confusing RELATIVE power (that is, power compared to it's contemporaries) with powerful for the time (compared to all hardware at the time).

How "powerful" was the N64 REALLY when it was emulated less than 3 years after release? Games like Ocarina of Time playable FULL speed on mid-range PCs just a few short years after release.

(edit) ProjectJustice: No... it's fact. What were the fastest commercially available PCs in 2005? Multicore processors were JUST starting to break out into consumer PCs, and none were clocked at 3+ghz.

Compare the SNES to PCs in 1992. The SNES main processor is clocked at 3.58mhz (and if I remember right) 16KB of video memory and with a relatively slow architecture... compared to PCs at the time which rocked 386 processors clocked at 33mhz and nearly a full megabyte of video memory

 

[Mastperf]

-sighs- No, the SNES was very WEAK hardware for the time and the N64 was definitely ambitious in the CPU front, they cheaped out HEAVILY on the various types of ram... compeltely bottlenecking all of the good parts and making it very difficult to program for.

People are confusing RELATIVE power (that is, power compared to it's contemporaries) with powerful for the time (compared to all hardware at the time).

How "powerful" was the N64 REALLY when it was emulated less than 3 years after release? Games like Ocarina of Time playable FULL speed on mid-range PCs just a few short years after release.

PC has absolutely nothing to do with console hardware. We're talking compared to other consoles. Nobody expects Nintendo, MS or Sony to release better than PC hardware.

 

[TheExodu5]

Can you point to a generation in which an increase in power didn't result in greater development costs? You're right, though: It doesn't necessitate higher development costs, but they will always occur.

Why?

Because the publishers and developers don't know how to compete in any other way.

Trial by fire.

I think the next generation will be a huge wake up call for plenty of devs/pubs.

While I think this is good and true in principle, all it takes is for a few devs to throw $100M at games and there becomes a huge disparity in graphics. That said, big money does not equal a good game.

This is true, and I think the industry will need to adapt and use flexible pricing in order to accomodate a disparity in production values.

 

[KojiKnight]

PC has absolutely nothing to do with console hardware. We're talking compared to other consoles. Nobody expects Nintendo, MS or Sony to release better than PC hardware.

No, but they are releasing COMPARABLE hardware... And they started doing so LAST generation (and again, X-box on the previous generation before that, but GCN and PS2 were not).

People are claiming that NES/SNES/N64 were all powerful hardware for the time... They weren't. They were relatively strong compared to their competition, but they weren't powerful hardware for the time.

 

[Garcia]

I think the next generation will be a huge wake up call for plenty of devs/pubs.

It's inevitable, and necessary.

 

[JordanN]

People are claiming that NES/SNES/N64 were all powerful hardware for the time... They weren't. They were relatively strong compared to their competition, but they weren't powerful hardware for the time.

All those consoles had something that it would take either another new console or PC to match. That is power.

 

[Saint Gregory]

I think the next generation will be a huge wake up call for plenty of devs/pubs.

If this gen wasn't a wake up call then I'm really afraid for the industry.

 

[Mastperf]

No, but they are releasing COMPARABLE hardware... And they started doing so LAST generation (and again, X-box on the previous generation before that, but GCN and PS2 were not).

People are claiming that NES/SNES/N64 were all powerful hardware for the time... They weren't. They were relatively strong compared to their competition, but they weren't powerful hardware for the time.

That was the whole point. PC is completely irrelevant when comparing one console to the next. PC isn't their competition and it most certainly wasn't their competition back then.

Being comparable to the PS360 is the problem. It's time for a generational shift and the WiiU isn't looking so hot compared to what's expected from the other two. It's ok now but it has to last a whole generation ~5 years on hardware comparable to already old tech.

 

[KojiKnight]

All those consoles had something that it would either take another new console or PC to match. That is power.

Now who's changing the definition of power

Anyways, I've managed to derail this topic enough as it is... Might be an interesting discussion topic for another time though.

(edit) Mastperf: One last thing then I'm done... I think we can all agree that when the PS360 first came out, they were powerful by just about every definition, not just simply by comparison towards other consoles.

 

[Orayn]

All those consoles had something that it would either take another new console or PC to match. That is power.

The NES' hardware was practically obsolete when it came out, but it didn't really have any direct competitors so it was kind of a weird situation.

I'll give you the SNES, since it was head and shoulders above the other 16-bit systems. N64 vs. PSX hardware was a wash apart from the storage media.

 

[Mastperf]

Now who's changing the definition of power

Anyways, I've managed to derail this topic enough as it is... Might be an interesting discussion topic for another time though.

(edit) Mastperf: One last thing then I'm done... I think we can all agree that when the PS360 first came out, they were powerful by just about every definition, not just simply by comparison towards other consoles.

Absolutely. Neither MS nor Sony had anything other than power to sell their systems. Nintendo can make a profitable console with their first party and a few 2nd/3rd part exclusives. It's also the main reason they've been able to keep going for so long with these systems as they didn't gimp them day 1. The systems MS and Sony released were built solely in response to one another. PC is and will continue to be hardware king, but it's just the product of a hardware driven market vs. a software driven one. Consoles are really just the means to an end and the hardware manufacturers would love to be able to give the consoles away if they could.

 

[Thraktor]

Anything pertaining to eDRAM's bandwidth spec yet?

Quoting myself from another thread:

Plus, as an added bonus, some numbers on the eDRAM bandwidth. It's down to one of these three possibilities:

1024bit interface -- 68.75GB/s
4096bit interface -- 275GB/s
8192bit interface -- 550GB/s

There are only three types of 40nm eDRAM made by Renesas, and we know the clock speed, so it has to be one of these numbers (barring anything crazy).

I would emphasise, though, that it's most likely that those would actually be aggregate bandwidths. So, for example, the CPU might have XXGB/s bandwidth, the ROPs might have XXXGB/s bandwidth, the SPUs might have XXXGB/s bandwidth, and that would all add up to 275GB/s or 550GB/s, even though any individual component only gets a fraction of that. I go through one specific possibility of how it might be divided in another post.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

There is some heavy duty revisionism in this thread.

i wonder how old some of you people really are.

The idea that nintendo always released crappy hardware is bollocks. Nintendos crappy hardware philosophy started with wi(or maybe ds, i dont care about handhelds).

Before that they always released good hardware.

famicom was highly competent hardware back in 1983, when it was released.

same with snes. And snes fucking smoked pc back in 1990.

pc was shit back in 1990.

no soundcard, pc speakers and ega graphics.

while the result was c+, the effort a+ when it comes to n64.

gc was well designed and of its time.

nes, snes, n64, gc where all contemporary hardware. Unlike wiiu and wii.

 

[TheExodu5]

If this gen wasn't a wake up call then I'm really afraid for the industry.

To be frank, I'm mostly excited about what will rise from the ashes. Kickstarter and PC DD are really the beginnings of what we'll be seeing next gen, I think. It's just not quite clear how well that will translate to console gaming at this point.

I will make one prediction: whoever makes it easiest for these devs to publish low budget or crowdsources games on their system will enjoy success as the generation carries on. This will be one of the most important aspects of the upcoming consoles...Sony and Microsoft both need to get this right.

 

[donny2112]

N64 vs. PSX hardware was a wash apart from the storage media.

When is your optical examination scheduled for?

 

[Sapiens]

There is some heavy duty revisionism in this thread.

i wonder how old some of you people really are.

The idea that nintendo always released crappy hardware is bollocks. Nintendos crappy hardware philosophy started with wi(or maybe ds, i dont care about handhelds).

Before that they always released good hardware.

famicom was highly competent hardware back in 1983, when it was released.

same with snes. And snes fucking smoked pc back in 1990.

pc was shit back in 1990.

no soundcard, pc speakers and ega graphics.

while the result was c+, the effort a+ when it comes to n64.

gc was well designed and of its time.

nes, snes, n64, gc where all contemporary hardware. Unlike wiiu and wii.

Pretty much.

Their portables were always "underpowered" compared to direct competition (GB v Lynx, for instance), but I would argue that they were simply more efficient.

 

[KojiKnight]

Pretty much.

Their portables were always "underpowered" compared to direct competition (GB v Lynx, for instance), but I would argue that they were simply more efficient.

Oh god... why do I keep clicking this thread!? I was going to just continue this in PM... but cursed me for clicking here when I knew this topic wouldn't just be dropped...

From the PM I sent earlier....

The NES contained a low clocked 6502 processor, this was old tech even by the time the famicom came out, and it was chosen because it was old and cheap to produce.

The SNES had a faster clocked 16-bit extended version of the 6502 known as the 65c816. While faster, it was still a VERY computationally weak processor.

Nintendo knew on BOTH systems that the processors and general tech were weak and even planned for it. They knew tech prices tended to drop fast and that people wouldn't want to rebuy consoles every year... that's why they made both systems extendible.

Famicom had the FDK which added additional ram as well as hardware sound channels. Later carts had additional ram and co-processors added to their mappers. The same is true of the SNES... The SA-1 chip (found in Super Mario RPG) for example contains a 65c816 core clocked at 4x the SNES speed AND contains additional ram.

The N64 is a slightly different story. It, by all means, had a VERY powerful processor, but it was hampered severely by nearly every other peice of tech in it. 4kb of texture memory being a big cause. Super high latency RDRAM being another huge culprit. These STARVED the processor and made the system under perform to what it could have.

N64 was so hampered that in 1999, a mere 3 years after it launched, it was emulatable at full speed on even low to mid-range PCs (I know, I used Ultra HLE to play Zelda OoT on a 450mhz PC with a voodoo 2 card ).

For comparison, you said PCs at the time had EGA graphics and no sound card... low end consumer PCs didn't at least, but even low end consumer PCs of the time were never geared towards gaming. They were always "business at home" type machines that easily cost 5 times as much as a game system and they were designed with hard computational work in mind. The SNES would have never been able to touch ANY of them in computational workload. The tech in them was more powerful, it just wasn't geared at gaming.

The NES and SNES could both have EASILY had stronger hardware at the time and been able to do much more, but the costs would have been prohibitively high... Compare this, again, to the PS360 era... What processors at the time could have beaten the Cell or Xenon by a very large margin? There were practically no consumer level multi core processors, and even those that did exist were very low clocked (barely breaking 2ghz on the more expensive models in dual core single threads).

Sony and Microsoft changed the name of the game with the PS360. They dropped moderate hardware for very advanced hardware to push HD graphics (which they themselves often times didn't reach, many PS360 games that are sub 720p upscaled) and had massive price hikes to their systems to get there.

(edit) For those curious, the NES processor was 6502 based, a design dating back to 1977, 6 years before the NES was launched

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6502

The SNES 65c816 was a design from 1982, 8 years before the SNES was launched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/65c816

The N64 VR4300's design was dated back to 1993, a mere 2-3 years before N64 launched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R4200#R4300i

Nintendo using the latest powerful technology indeed

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

Oh god... why do I keep clicking this thread!? I was going to just continue this in PM... but cursed me for clicking here when I knew this topic wouldn't just be dropped...

From the PM I sent earlier....

you are wrong.

Nes which was released in 83 was more than comparable to c64(82)
snes which was released in 1990 was more than comparable to megadrive(88)
n64 which was released in 96 was comparable to psone.
game cube(2001) was more than comparable to ps2(1999)

wii (2006)was highly underpowerd compared to 360(2005)
wiiu(2012) can barely keep up with 360(2005), highly underpowered compared to next gen twins.

 

[KojiKnight]

you are wrong.

Nes which was released in 83 was more than comparable to c64(82)
snes which was released in 1990 was more than comparable to megadrive(88)
n64 which was released in 96 was comparable to psone.
game cube was more than comparable to ps2

wii was highly underpowerd compared to 360
wiiu can barely keep up with 360, highly underpowered compared to next gen twins.

You're misunderstanding the facts. The 6502 in the NES was a late 70's processor. The SNES processor was an early 80's processor. They were both at least 5 year old tech. They were both cheap and weak components.

The Gamecube had a current processor, the PowerPC 750 were introduced at the same time as the GCN, but the GCN's Gekko was clocked lower than most of it's contemporaries, it wasn't as powerful as they were... Why? To fit Nintendo's case form factor and power demands... Just like the Wii U.

(edit) when I say contemporaries, I meant the power Powe750 line, not other consoles. PS2 was still a conservative machine, just as the PS1 had been. There were much better and faster CPU, video, and ram tech that they could have put in those systems, but the costs would have killed them, or at least really hurt them.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

You're misunderstanding the facts. The 6502 in the NES was a late 70's processor. The SNES processor was an early 80's processor. They were both at least 5 year old tech. They were both cheap and weak components.

motorola 68000 which fueled amiga, atarist, megadrive is based on 1979 tech.

what are you talking about.

nes was released in 83? what the do you expect?

The Gamecube had a current processor, the PowerPC 750 were introduced at the same time as the GCN, but the GCN's Gekko was clocked lower than most of it's contemporaries, it wasn't as powerful as they were... Why? To fit Nintendo's case form factor and power demands... Just like the Wii U.

what the fuck.

 

[JordanN]

but the GCN's Gekko was clocked lower than most of it's contemporaries, it wasn't as powerful as they were...

I thought this thread was combating this myth? Looks like there's still more work to be done.

Edit:

Sorry, you must have missed my edit. When I said "comtemporaries" I was talking about the other CPUs in the Power750 Line.

Understand.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

i dont know what is worse koji pros revisionism or jordans poly counting.

where do these people come from?

 

[yurinka]

Horsepower wise NES, SNES, N64 and NGC were more or less at the same level than the other consoles of their generation. Wii and WiiU instead can't compete with the consoles that are supposed to be of their same generation.

This wasn't a problem for DS, Wii or 3DS because they have some unique and 'innovative' big addition.

So maybe in this case WiiU may aspire to get ports/multiplatform games with PS3360 instead of with PS4/720, but it doesn't mean that it's going to be a failure as other recent Nintendo devices proved.

They have a legion of fans who don't care about getting worse looking games.

 

[KojiKnight]

I thought this thread was combating this myth? Looks like there's still more work to be done.

Sorry, you must have missed my edit. When I said "comtemporaries" I was talking about the other CPUs in the Power750 Line.

First some perspective, the Power750 was a low power family... A 400mhz 750 ran at just 4 watts. The Gekko is, of course, clocked higher at about 485mhz so we can safely put it in the 5-7 watt range. The maximum speed of the Power750's at the time of the GCN launch was 700mhz, so about 33% slower than the other members of it's low power line.

Compare that to other processors in 2000 like the AMD K7 thoroughbred which were 40watts and up to 1.4ghz.



I'm still thinking people are somehow trying to pick an arguement with me that I'm not making... I'm not saying the GCN was underpowered compared to the PS2 or X-box 1. Nor the N64 to the PSX... or the SNES to the genesis...

Compared to other tech available at the time of these systems though, they were ALL (that is EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM including Sony and Microsoft) "weak" and "under powered" compared to the tech currently available at their launch. My point is, has, and will ALWAYS be that Sony and Microsoft changed the rules with the PS360. Nintendo hasn't, it's still going by the same rules it's ALWAYS had (low wattage, cheap hardware, smaller form factor) and that people should stop saying "But Nintendo used to believe in power!" because no it didn't. And neither did Sony for the PS1 and 2, and neither did Microsoft to the extent it did with the x-box 1.

(edit)

motorola 68000 which fueled amiga, atarist, megadrive is based on 1979 tech.

what are you talking about.

nes was released in 83? what the do you expect?

You finally figured it out! ALL of those systems weren't using state of the art tech either! None of them were "powerful" when they came out compared to the current tech available, they were only "powerful" compared to each other and what came before them system wise.

 

[Dacvak]

These threads are always so stupid and infuriating at how people react to specs they don't understand.

 

[mooooose]

Only reason I have beef with Nintendo for using slow RAM/small amounts of RAM is because Nintendo consoles went from having no load times (up to GCN, where no first party games had considerable load times) to now when we can expect lag in changing menus, long load screens, and slow texture loading/pop up. Fuck that.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

Sorry, you must have missed my edit. When I said "comtemporaries" I was talking about the other CPUs in the Power750 Line.

First some perspective, the Power750 was a low power family... A 400mhz 750 ran at just 4 watts. The Gekko is, of course, clocked higher at about 485mhz so we can safely put it in the 5-7 watt range. The maximum speed of the Power750's at the time of the GCN launch was 700mhz, so about 33% slower than the other members of it's low power line.

Compare that to other processors in 2000 like the AMD K7 thoroughbred which were 40watts and up to 1.4ghz.



I'm still thinking people are somehow trying to pick an arguement with me that I'm not making... I'm not saying the GCN was underpowered compared to the PS2 or X-box 1. Nor the N64 to the PSX... or the SNES to the genesis...

Compared to other tech available at the time of these systems though, they were ALL (that is EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM including Sony and Microsoft) "weak" and "under powered" compared to the tech currently available at their launch. My point is, has, and will ALWAYS be that Sony and Microsoft changed the rules with the PS360. Nintendo hasn't, it's still going by the same rules it's ALWAYS had (low wattage, cheap hardware, smaller form factor) and that people should stop saying "But Nintendo used to believe in power!" because no it didn't. And neither did Sony for the PS1 and 2, and neither did Microsoft to the extent it did with the x-box 1.

(edit)


You finally figured it out! ALL of those systems weren't using state of the art tech either! None of them were "powerful" when they came out compared to the current tech available, they were only "powerful" compared to each other and what came before them system wise.

no. I found out you have no clue what so ever.

Not only that. You where not alive when shadow of the beast was demoed back in 1989.

you dont know shit. You dont understand shit.

yet you are full of shit.

 

[BocoDragon]

It's not that Nintendo always targetted lower power.

It's that they always targetted a lower price.

Whatever the components were to deliver a machine at an affordable mass market price ($200 in the 80s/90s, $250 for Wii), they used those.

Sometimes those components delivered power that was relatively high, and sometimes those components delivered power that was relatively low.

And in fact, with the Wii U being the first Nintendo console to be sold at a loss, you could even argue that it represents that highest amount of 'technology' in a Nintendo console relative to the standards of the time (lets not use the word "power" in this case, since the cost of components are distributed to the gamepad, not just the raw processing power of the CPU)

And the fact that Sony and Microsoft have regularly sold their consoles at a massive loss, while Nintendo has not (until now), does support the argument that Nintendo has always developed lower spec consoles compared to competition. (at least since the tech companies got into the game. Pretty sure a living Sega would operate like Nintendo does)

I do think that the industry changed around Nintendo, rather than Nintendo having changed.

 

[KojiKnight]

no. I found out you have no clue what so ever.

Not only that. You where not alive when shadow of the beast was demoed back in 1989.

you dont know shit. You dont understand shit.

yet you are full of shit.

I'm not sure what all you want out of this... I truly don't. I'm giving you links, I'm giving you facts, I'm giving you comparisons historically and I still think what you're getting at is something from the start I'm not disagreeing with.

I never once said a game was bad. I never once said a game system (ANY system) was bad. I never once threw an insult (aside from a bit of snark, which if you took offense to I'm sorry).

The fact remains, no console manufacturer started using top of the line, wattage gobbling hardware in systems till the PS360... Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Atari, NEC, etc ALL used older, mature tech that was both cheap and energy efficient. Not energy efficient because they wanted to save the world, but because it made for smaller, sleaker systems that required far less cooling.

Nintendo has never strayed from this approach. Not once, none of their consoles or handhelds have ever been powerful energy guzzling super consoles of their generations like the PS360 were. Nintendo didn't change their strategy and to some people that has been a detriment, but it was Sony and Microsoft who changed 3 decades worth of rules to push the HD gen in 2005/06.

(edit) BocoDragon: That's also a very good take on the situation. Consumer price expectancy is also a big part of all of this and something that played a big part is Sony doing so poorly in initial sales with the PS3 compared to PS1/2.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

(edit) For those curious, the NES processor was 6502 based, a design dating back to 1977, 6 years before the NES was launched

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6502

The SNES 65c816 was a design from 1982, 8 years before the SNES was launched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/65c816

The N64 VR4300's design was dated back to 1993, a mere 2-3 years before N64 launched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R4200#R4300i

Nintendo using the latest powerful technology indeed

And each and every one of those systems had a graphics co-processor. Called a Picture Processing Unit. As did the GBA. I don't know for certain whether there was on in the GBA or not.

The NES, SNES and GBA ones were designed for sprite processing. They allowed the system to run with those much older and slower CPUs with fantastic results.

 

[Saint Gregory]

To be frank, I'm mostly excited about what will rise from the ashes. Kickstarter and PC DD are really the beginnings of what we'll be seeing next gen, I think. It's just not quite clear how well that will translate to console gaming at this point.

I will make one prediction: whoever makes it easiest for these devs to publish low budget or crowdsources games on their system will enjoy success as the generation carries on. This will be one of the most important aspects of the upcoming consoles...Sony and Microsoft both need to get this right.

That bodes really badly for Nintendo then. As much as think that they could really benefit from the Kickstarter/Crowdsourcing model as the smallest company of the big three I don't believe that they will ever embrace a system where consumers have that much power and control over their development.

Many of the bridges they've burned with 3rd parties over the years has been due to their fierce protection of control over their IPs.

 

[Madouu]

I never once said a game was bad. I never once said a game system (ANY system) was bad. I never once threw an insult (aside from a bit of snark, which if you took offense to I'm sorry).

I find it funny that you are the one apologizing when he's the one being overly agressive without really backing any of his claims (which are not wrong as you justly remarked, but do not contradict what you are saying neither).

 

[Refreshment.01]

Would love to hear how Im not being rational at all?

Of course it's common knowledge that there's a learning curve and adaptation time when developing from one architecture to a new and different one, but what your assertions fail to take into consideration is the "context".

And the context is, that these ports are not designed for a console that's 1 or 2 years apart from the target platform. No, the gap it's seven years of size. So this case is more an exception than a rule. We didn't saw the DreamCast having inferior ports of N64/PSX games or a 360 having a hard time handling the PS2/Xbox ported software.

Can a WiiU (with enough time and resources) handle Batman, ACIII or Epic Mickey equally or slightly better than the current competition? Most certainly so, but that's not saying much when it just has to keep up with ancient hardware.

I hope that now it's clear to you the reason to my over the top reaction to your comment:

Its a pretty unfair comparison really. Xbox 360 has been out since 2005. Devs have had years to learn, optimize and squeeze every bit of juice out of the hardware. The same cant be said about Wii U. You cant measure what hardware can do with launch titles and rushed ports.

 

[BocoDragon]

(edit) BocoDragon: That's also a very good take on the situation. Consumer price expectancy is also a big part of all of this and something that played a big part is Sony doing so poorly in initial sales with the PS3 compared to PS1/2.

Thanks. Because I think you're essentially right. But someone could rightfully assert that most Nintendo consoles were relatively competitive in terms of power until the Wii... But that's only because it was once pretty affordable to make something that competed well enough with competitor console/PC tech in the 80s/90s. And it became an expensive nightmare to compete on tech by the mid-2000s. I mean PS3 at $600 was being sold at a loss!

When people complain about Nintendo "cheaping out" or "falling behind" on tech for the Wii U, I understand where they are coming from.. But with the Wii U sold at a loss? Nobody's cheaping out. This tech world is just crazy expensive now.

You could ditch the gamepad idea, sure. But then you'd compete on tech, and you'd be selling for a very high price at a loss or be way underpowered (with no hook).... Who else but Microsoft can even play that game now? Even Sony can barely handle it.

 

[KojiKnight]

That bodes really badly for Nintendo then. As much as think that they could really benefit from the Kickstarter/Crowdsourcing model as the smallest company of the big three I don't believe that they will ever embrace a system where consumers have that much power and control over their development.

Many of the bridges they've burned with 3rd parties over the years has been due to their fierce protection of control over their IPs.

The problem for consoles is they make their money off of licensing, and on PCs there is no need for it, so kickstarters are more effective there. Plus, of course, it'd be a lot harder dealing with kickstarters where donators get copies of the game for their donations.

I guess it still works for digital... At first thought it didn't seem that complex of an issue. Cutting out publishers shouldn't make it more difficult to get your game on a console, but licensing and meeting quality standards could be brutal on small devs just trying to gain enough capital to get their games completed.

 

[Pimpbaa]

The fact remains, no console manufacturer started using top of the line, wattage gobbling hardware in systems till the PS360...

I'd say the original xbox was the first.

 

[wcw]

Horsepower wise NES, SNES, N64 and NGC were more or less at the same level than the other consoles of their generation. Wii and WiiU instead can't compete with the consoles that are supposed to be of their same generation.

This wasn't a problem for DS, Wii or 3DS because they have some unique and 'innovative' big addition.

So maybe in this case WiiU may aspire to get ports/multiplatform games with PS3360 instead of with PS4/720, but it doesn't mean that it's going to be a failure as other recent Nintendo devices proved.

They have a legion of fans who don't care about getting worse looking games.

Its put me off of getting a WiiU till the console becomes very cheap (150-200) I am not going to spend more than 200$ for a machine that is under powered vastly to its console contemporaries.

 

[Projectjustice]

Of course it's common knowledge that there's a learning curve and adaptation time when developing from one architecture to a new and different one, but what your assertions fail to take into consideration is the "context".

And the context is, that these ports are not designed for a console that's 1 or 2 years apart from the target platform. No, the gap it's seven years of size. So this case is more an exception than a rule. We didn't saw the DreamCast having inferior ports of N64/PSX games or a 360 having a hard time handling the PS2/Xbox ported software.

Can a WiiU (with enough time and resources) handle Batman, ACIII or Epic Mickey equally or slightly better than the current competition? Most certainly so, but that's not saying much when it just has to keep up with ancient hardware.

I hope that now it's clear to you the reason to my over the top reaction to your comment:

Yet I had people saying I was right within the same thread. I wonder who is not rational when everyone is saying the opposite about you.

 

[Threi]

no. I found out you have no clue what so ever.

Not only that. You where not alive when shadow of the beast was demoed back in 1989.

you dont know shit. You dont understand shit.

yet you are full of shit.

What the hell kind of response is this?

 

[KojiKnight]

I find it funny that you are the one apologizing when he's the one being overly agressive without really backing any of his claims (which are not wrong as you justly remarked, but do not contradict what you are saying neither).

I just wanted to be clear that my snark wasn't meant to be malice if that is what he was taking it as. I sometimes forget that when I type things on the internet you can't get the same feel for emotional backing. I didn't take offense to his outburst, but I wanted to make it clear my goal wasn't to goad him into it.

 

[Eideka]

yet you are full of shit.

Dude....

No need to be so rude.

 

[test_account]

Many of the bridges they've burned with 3rd parties over the years has been due to their fierce protection of control over their IPs.

How do you mean?

 

[Pimpbaa]

What the hell kind of response is this?

Don't question him! People who weren't alive when shadow of the beast was demoed back in 1989 are beneath him!

 

[Refreshment.01]

Yet I had people saying I was right within the same thread. I wonder who is not rational when everyone is saying the opposite about you.

You also got lots of people disagreeing with you.

Anyway, I gave you the chance and proceed to explain my point of view, yet this is the answer i get, an answer full of spite and brings nothing to the topic.

So guess my call was on the money when i said there's no point in trying to stablish some reasonable disscussion, your mind is made up. You engage in a disscusion to satisfy your ego not to reach the thruth or learn something. Just do what makes you feel better i guess.