Wii U: Does it really matter if PS4 and Xbox 720 are more powerful?
- Thread starter marc^o^
- Start date
flyinpiranha
Member
I wasn't arguing whether one was 1.1111 or 1.1112x the leap from last generation. I am saying that there are huge leaps (whatever your definition of 'huge' may be) between each. It's the same as anything that grows like this, it's subjective.
Of course DR is in effect, it is without almost ALL technology at one point unless you grow exponentially, but I'm speaking about the changes from LAST gen to THIS gen specifically which he seems to be arguing weren't as much as the previous. I could link a video to PD and SF but I'd see the same leap (IMO) between them. I just posted videos to those 2 because that was what he was trying to imply that the leap wasn't as large as previous generations and screens aren't a good factor to judge that by, especially compressed screens that are resized.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
In Skyrim, every NPC has a routine, that routine changes depending on the time of the day. There is little variation on the routine until the player's "Radius of influence" covers that NPCs current location and alters, very slightly.
I dream of a future where hundreds of NPCs have real routines more akin to the real world and interact with each other in such a way that the world in game would progress whether the player decides to do something or stand and walk in a circle the entire time. Maybe NPCs would come up and ask "Why are you standing there?" and spread word of the standing idiot. And of course animals doing animal things and pets doing pet things and monsters doing monster things and occasionally wandering into town.
It's probably feasible on current gen but likely at the concession of something else. I havent seen it or anything close
We were entirely skeptical of the jump from Xbox to Xbox 360, and its understandable we're skeptical of the jump from this gen to the next gen, because there is a ceiling and we're unsure of where that ceiling is... but there is definitely room to grow.
And the Wii U must find other ways to cope.
I dream of a future where hundreds of NPCs have real routines more akin to the real world and interact with each other in such a way that the world in game would progress whether the player decides to do something or stand and walk in a circle the entire time. Maybe NPCs would come up and ask "Why are you standing there?" and spread word of the standing idiot. And of course animals doing animal things and pets doing pet things and monsters doing monster things and occasionally wandering into town.
It's probably feasible on current gen but likely at the concession of something else. I havent seen it or anything close
We were entirely skeptical of the jump from Xbox to Xbox 360, and its understandable we're skeptical of the jump from this gen to the next gen, because there is a ceiling and we're unsure of where that ceiling is... but there is definitely room to grow.
And the Wii U must find other ways to cope.
€&%^$ to your sister(whatever it means lol ), don't you think that ps4 and x720 will have their own bells and whistles that will not be possible or available on wiiu exactly like ps360 and wii?
This quote was further back but I need to respond to this as its something very few people in this topic that think processing doesn't make a difference. The costs go up not because of some deluded idea of diminishing returns for power, but diminishing returns for the platform itself. New technology has smarter and better optimized rendering tools that allow developers to automatically achieve visuals that would have needed painstaking hours to try and emulate and optimize on older system specs. I bet you anything it will cost developers LESS to make the same damn game they made on the 360 and made a similar version on the next generation. The problem is that with an increased hardware comes increased expectations, and its a race to blow people way with whatever the new preset limitations are. Its why games at the end of a generation look so much better then the first generation and it has everything to do with development 'costs' going up trying to squeeze every ounce they can out of the platform where first generation just tries to make a functional but less optimized game.
Furthermore development tools have gotten extremely better with an amazing work flow. From the changes in Photoshop, to modeling tools like Zbrush (Best 700 dollars I have ever spent, I love just screwing around in that program making models and they always come out looking great and I'm not even much of an artist!), to new engines like UE4 coming out which is designed not just to more powerful and optimized, but to cater to a better multi development work flow. If anything the 'indie' crowd is going to get more use out of PSN and XNA because they have those tools available to them to create a visually appealing game with a smarter and less costly work flow. Its the big developers that complain about costs, they are the ones expected to squeeze every ounce of power and optimization out of the systems limitations and that stuff actually does have diminishing returns.
I'm still not getting his point. He can have his little victory over diminishing returns, but its just an overly literal take on what people's arguments have been. He himself has already admitted that next-gen will most likely be a significant step from what we have now, and thats all anybody was trying to say in the first place.
Not read full artcle, only quotes and those are hardly objective at all. They just bring the old Wii argument of control over power. Thing is this generation most gaming has been on more powerful consoles, and power has always been the reason for each new generation. WiiU itself will be able to have games wii could not ,so that says all. Ps4 or xb3 will be able to play games that wiiU won't if they areway more powerful. Power is a tool devs can use.
Killer Instinct didn't use 3D graphics. It was pre-rendered. It would have no place in this comparison. The point is to compare the progression of real-time 3D graphics. Otherwise you'd be able to point to some FMV game and say, "Holy shit, this console could do totally photorealistic graphics!"
My only point is that diminishing returns are a real thing, and not some mythical rumor invented by Nintendo.
POWERSPHERE
Member
By the end of this year Nintendo will have released the most powerful standalone games console in the history of mankind. That is truth.
Don't worry about it too much.
Don't worry about it too much.
EatinOlives
Member
Does matter for us folk who want Nintendo go back to making GameCube-style games. You know, games that are as much about jaw-dropping technical achievements as they are about gameplay.
Hated Nintendo's Wii output with the exception of a couple of games. Their extremely lackluster launch titles shows me they're not interested in changing that type of output.
Besides, it mattered to the Wii the past three years that the hardware was way underpowered. Nintendo themselves said it. And yes, during launch there most definitely was the "does it matter if the Wii is underpowered?" sentiment and look what that got us. It's not simply about if it'll be good enough today. It's about if it'll be good enough 4, 5, 6 years from now. WiiU's hardware won't be.
Hated Nintendo's Wii output with the exception of a couple of games. Their extremely lackluster launch titles shows me they're not interested in changing that type of output.
Besides, it mattered to the Wii the past three years that the hardware was way underpowered. Nintendo themselves said it. And yes, during launch there most definitely was the "does it matter if the Wii is underpowered?" sentiment and look what that got us. It's not simply about if it'll be good enough today. It's about if it'll be good enough 4, 5, 6 years from now. WiiU's hardware won't be.
MrCunningham
Member
And yet the Wii still sold tremendously well in its early years despite what your HD loving friends thought of the console. Your friends were in a minority, and HDTV's didn't really start to become widespread until just a few years ago when they started to drop in price.
Here in 2012, you can't buy an old school 4:3 CRT anymore, nobody makes them. If you are still holding on to an old CRT television for some reason (and I know a few people who still are), then you have no choice but to move on to HDTV set when you're ready to upgrade.
Now that the rest of the world is starting to move on to that standard, I can see why the Wii would look less appealing. But a few year your average customer didn't seem to care.
Boss Man
Member
But aren't they insinuating that they can get away with current gen tech and that we won't see a huge difference between that and next gen tech?
So...........you replied to me to argue about something I never said?
shinobi602
Member
Sure it's a real thing, but they're acting as if the differences are insignificant when both of us agree each jump from gen to gen has been substantial.
If the system isn't powerful, then how am I supposed to get anything worth the money they're going to ask for it? This is Nintendo, man. They'd probably bring out a basic calculator with a Mario sticker on it and I'd be asked to pay $40 for it.
At least with Sony and MS you know you're going to get a good piece of kit for the money you spend.
At least with Sony and MS you know you're going to get a good piece of kit for the money you spend.
The same thing I mentioned the first time graphics becoming bad because something new and better comes out. Old games don't look bad because something new comes out that looks better. Shit looks like shit no matter the age. You say I'm full of contradiction. Then what is a crowd comparing different generation of products to the newest at the time expecting somehow that the old can keep up with the new? You should realize that if the old is keeping up with the new something is wrong. T
My point about Diablo 2 or older blizzard games is they were made for old machines well before we had what we had now in pc which is DX and consistent environment to make games. Your pc has trouble with it because your pc wasn't the one it was developed for. You're ignoring something basic about games console or pc is that the performance is locked in for the most part unless you go in and make big changes.
flyinpiranha
Member
I agree with this. But I don't think it's gotten to a point to truly take affect.
This, this is where we differ completely and the whole basis of the DR argument is subjective at this point because we aren't looking at realistic, life-like people like we would see in a CGI movie such as Avatar or Avengers. I do believe people will see the difference. There is still a HUGE room for improvement. If video games was a graph it's still a steady climb up hill from generation to generation, we have yet to come to the plateau.
Until I'm playing something that looks real, I think DR isn't a factor for the most part as long as the companies developing the hardware and software are pushing the limits of current technology (also assuming technology advances at a steady rate).
How were open world games on ps2? They seem to really have matured this generation, streaming effectively infinite worlds from a DVD drive. That is not diminishing returns. Next gen will let developers really put the meat on the bones and hopefully designers will be given more freedom due to better tools and more power
It's already hit them for me. Things are starting to look so real nowadays that it's actually become distasteful blowing people's heads off. Over time, I truly feel we'll reach a point where it's too real - and what used to be fun will become grotesque.
Hopefully.
But the way you are arguing diminishing returns is odd. There is most certainly a huge amount of room between human perception going from uncharted to avatar or uncharted to real life. And if console manufacturers and graphics companies were bold enough(they aren't going to be though) a leap that is as great from past generations is most definitely possible. Yet your argument seems to be relying on the supposed notion that no longer can humans perceive a leap as great as what we have seen in previous generations, even if the technology were there to go from uncharted to avatar. Nintendo seems to be echoing this as well and it's silly.
The reason we won't see leaps as great as prior gens is because of economics, profits, a shifting of console makers business plans and because top end graphical advancements pushed wattage levels to points console manufacturers don't feel comfortable using them in a console set up.
Diminishing returns is a result of those things, and slightly slowing graphical advancement, not human perception. At least not yet.
The funny thing to me is that the "diminishing returns" crowd claims it's gameplay that matters to them, and then only wants to talk about graphics in the context of diminishing returns.
I don't at all accept the argument that graphics have reached diminishing returns, but I'd be happy to talk about gameplay too. We have some reasonably direct comparisons. Look at Morrowind -> Skyrim, Mercenaries -> Just Cause 2, etc.
What developers have been able to achieve on current hardware compared to last generation is staggering.
I haven't read this whole thread, but it all depends on what the developers think. The question they should be asking is "Does it matter to developers if the PS4 and Xbox 720 are more powerful?"
In the case of the Wii, yes it did matter because power-wise it was too far behind, and devs didn't want to think up ides for games on the Wii Remote, despite the Wii's massive sales lead. Now the Wii U will probably be within porting range of the PS4 and Xbox 720, and has a standard controller plus a touch screen. If Nintendo can get enough of a sales lead in its year advantage over the other two platforms, I don't think power will matter all that much. Market share has always been more important than horsepower.
In the case of the Wii, yes it did matter because power-wise it was too far behind, and devs didn't want to think up ides for games on the Wii Remote, despite the Wii's massive sales lead. Now the Wii U will probably be within porting range of the PS4 and Xbox 720, and has a standard controller plus a touch screen. If Nintendo can get enough of a sales lead in its year advantage over the other two platforms, I don't think power will matter all that much. Market share has always been more important than horsepower.
EatinOlives
Member
Do the people swinging around the "diminishing returns" meme even have any historical evidence to back that up? Because I very clearly remember that exact argument used in 2005 with the jump between the Xbox->360 and PS2->PS3 a year later and it turned out to be absolute bollocks in the long run.
Because you're buying a machine that plays games, so getting the money's worth should be related to the games that come out not the hardware. Is there any point to owning a super powerful machine if it doesn't have any games?
I can understand people caring about graphics and technology, but I always disliked this notion that a console value is tied to its hardware instead of its games.
It should be both. Gamers want games and Developers want hardware so they can produce these crazy game ideas.
Excuse me if I don't like paying a premium for anything that isn't, itself, worth the money I invest into it. I pay for the games separately; that's where that money comes into it, not with the original console purchase. These are separate products often created by separate companies. Why should the former reflect the latter?
Boss Man
Member
Well, you can't have one without the other. Of course you buy a console to play games, but would you want to buy a new console every arbitrary number of years to replace your old one for no reason other than that they'll stop making games on the old one? If we're buying new hardware we want better experiences, not just a continuation of what we had.
I'm not sure you're understanding the 'relative' bit in my comment.
And I dont get why you're still going on about Diablo 2. It has nothing to do with anything we're saying. It was a throwaway example to get my point across that I'm not a graphics whore.
Developers want the core userbase. That's where they will go regardless. Or at least they'll go where they think they'll get the core userbase.
Boss Man
Member
I think you're confusing developers with publishers. Many developers have a vision first, and a title on a certain platform(s) next. If it was like you say, MGS4 would have been released on DS. Developers want the platform(s) that can best realize their game.
Always-honest
Banned
It means handsome
. Yes they will be way above Wii-U but it will be far from the difference between wii and 360. In this case, resolution does play a key part. But i hope ps4 games will have a lot more bells and whistles than Wii-U. Cause i like my eyecandy. Like i said before, the wii looked sooooo horrible on a HD tv and the Dolphin thread allready proved the importance of resolution and AA. The wii-U games will look far better than on Dolphin, so it's not just a high res Wii.
Would i like the Wii-U to be as powerfull as ps4, sure! But it won't.
Captain Smoker
Member
And core userbase with money.
Its not bollocks, its just that its not showing its presence quite enough to where a generation leap isn't still quite dramatic and noticeable.
Basically, its not time to start bringing it up just yet. There's still a long way to go.
That's the thing. If you can't have one thing without the other, it doesn't really matter if you pay separately. Does it "hurt" if you're paying a lot for hardware that costs little to manufacture? Yes. But as far as videogames are concerned powerful hardware in itself offers absolutely no value.
Again, why should I care if I payed X for a console that's packed with cutting edge technology that costs X+1 if I don't have games to play on it?
Of course that I realize that you have to pay to play games and that hardware power might reflect itself on the game's quality, but that it tangent to the point I'm making.
This is the way I feel of course, you're free to think whatever you want obviously, I'm just voicing my opinion.
Thankfully Fancy Corndog, this isn't happening, we aren't getting new consoles just because.
EDIT:
Well, life doesn't work like it should
At this stage, I don't think it'll make much difference for mostly the same reason as KevinCow. I think we're nearing a point now with console hardware where the coding and artistic talents of developers are the main keys to impressive graphics. The ceiling is most definitely still there this gen, but talented devs are almost able to make it appear as though it's not.
There's multiple ways of producing similar looking effects, with varying degrees of tax on hardware. So on PS720 a developer may employ a hardware-intensive technique like ray tracing/casting, but for the Wii U port, they might use a nice scan line rendering algorithm and regular shadow mapping as a less taxing alternative. While the PS720 version would be technically superior to the Wii U version, you'd probably not notice all that much difference unless you have both games playing right there alongside each other.
To compare this to Wii vs PS360 is a bit over the top imo. It's as though people are actually expecting developers to come up with Avatar-quality graphics next-gen or something.
There's multiple ways of producing similar looking effects, with varying degrees of tax on hardware. So on PS720 a developer may employ a hardware-intensive technique like ray tracing/casting, but for the Wii U port, they might use a nice scan line rendering algorithm and regular shadow mapping as a less taxing alternative. While the PS720 version would be technically superior to the Wii U version, you'd probably not notice all that much difference unless you have both games playing right there alongside each other.
To compare this to Wii vs PS360 is a bit over the top imo. It's as though people are actually expecting developers to come up with Avatar-quality graphics next-gen or something.
I think we've passed the point where Joe Public truly sees, understands, and appreciates the difference between real-time games and pre-rendered CG. I think the average person won't notice a big leap until we reach something approaching modern movie CG, when games almost look like Avatar and Transformers and Avengers. And... honestly, even then, I'm sure there a lot of people out there who don't understand how much more impressive Hulk in The Avengers is than Marcus Fenix.
I think that, from here on, there will be a lot of, "Well, I can tell that looks better, but I can't exactly say why it looks better." I don't think we're going to get that same kind of HOLY SHIT leap from the general public that Gears of War got until we can actually make lifelike humans, indistinguishable from real life. And considering we're not even there yet in movies, I'd say we have a ways to go.
Before PS2 - No 3D open world games.
PS2 - Open world games, but they run poorly.
After PS2 - Open world games run better.
I'd say the jump from no open world games to open world games is bigger than the jump from open world games to better open world games. Diminishing returns.
EatinOlives
Member
For this generation? I believe it was. The difference between launch 360 games and something like The Witcher 2 (console version of course) is enormous. And there absolutely is a full generational gap between that and late games from the previous generation.
Though I agree with the rest of your statement. Yes, we'll reach that point sometime, but there's still a long way to go.
flyinpiranha
Member
That's a completely different topic. DR doesn't have anything to do with what you'd 'want' to be displayed.
Boss Man
Member
It's ok that you're voicing your opinion, I'm not mad at you or anything I promise!That's the thing. If you can't have one thing without the other, it doesn't really matter if you pay separately. Does it "hurt" if you're paying a lot for hardware that costs little to manufacture? Yes. But as far as videogames are concerned powerful hardware in itself offers absolutely no value.
Again, why should I care if I payed X for a console that's packed with cutting edge technology that costs X+1 if I don't have games to play on it?
Of course that I realize that you have to pay to play games and that hardware power might reflect itself on the game's quality, but that it tangent to the point I'm making.
This is the way I feel of course, you're free to think whatever you want obviously, I'm just voicing my opinion.
Thankfully Fancy Corndog, this isn't happening, we aren't getting new consoles just because.
EDIT:
Well, life doesn't work like it should
I don't really agree with your logic though. I think the point you're trying to make is that better hardware isn't inherently worth anything, and I would argue that if that's the case then neither is a video game- because you can't spin the disc without hardware. The reality of the matter is that superior hardware allows for superior experiences.
Actually, what many of us are saying is that we're still quite a ways away from Avatar-like graphics and there's still room for big leaps before we get there.
So, high end pcs and consoles like ps4 xb3 will have no games.?
flyinpiranha
Member
I will just have to kindly disagree. It's a subjective argument based on anecdotal evidence of what we both think the general public will 'see' based off or our own beliefs.
Diminishing returns can be used to describe anything that begins to lose value incrementally beyond a certain point of investment. There's more than just a technological aspect to this.
EatinOlives
Member
That's really not what anyone means when they're using that term in this context.
Don't people say that very gen? Maybe it's just because near the end of a generation games start to plateau in terms of tech advancements on show, and that is projected forward. But I can't remember a gen that I wasn't wowed right from the start.
Sure, eventually things will level out - audio for one has probably plateaued. But there is still a ton to do with graphics and physics. This gen was really just about able to show expansive worlds and include some basic physics and AI.
I get that. What I'm suggesting is that maybe they should. Notice how many commentators there were following this E3 about hyper-violence, even though there was no more than usual?
That's what I'm talking about.
At least your admitting this is strictly opinion now and not evolutionarily or genetically proven or some shit like last page. But frankly I think youll find quite a lot of disagreement. Even a leap from here to half of avatar would be a noticeable step up from even the latest engines IMO and there are plenty of everyday normal people that will perceive the luminous engine as a big advancement over gears of war or uncharted IMO.
But since everything I just said is subjective, same as you, I don't see the need to get all bent out of shape when people disagree.
It matters in terms of support. Many developers at this point in the generation have reached the bar in what they can do technically on the current hardware. Given better hardware they WILL be able to do much more.
Developers want flexibility, and the WiiU hardly gives them that. The more headroom to work with, the better.
Developers want flexibility, and the WiiU hardly gives them that. The more headroom to work with, the better.