Support NeoGAF

[Shion]

I think it is about graphics, because there really is nothing about Skyward Sword, Twilight Princess, Corruption or both Galaxies that had me doubting their production value. I wonder what you found lacking?

When it comes to Zelda, the problem is in the lacking presentation. A lot of things are keep presented in the same way they did back in 1998. Today, a lot of things feel very anachronistic and cheap.

I'm totally placing my bets on "lack of voice acting"...

Why not? Besides tradition, there’s really no reason why the series shouldn’t have voice acting in 2012. This really weakens the immersion in a game that should be as immersive as possible. If anything, a world where everyone but Link had a voice, it would only emphasize the fact that Link doesn’t have one. At least, give the game a fictional language, or something like a narrator.

Another example is the environments. In my opinion, most of the environments in the latest Zelda games, just feel bland, lifeless and boring. Sure, the old hardware played its role here, but I remember several PS2 era games in which the environments felt more alive and immersive. Skyward Sword’s forest area, in particular, was incredibly lacking imo.

 

[ReyVGM]

Ok, even if everything you say is correct that's still at least a year after the PS3 came out.

Support one year after a newer console is out is hardly "support". Those games were in production at least a couple of years before the PS3 came out. Except for the sports titles which are usually just repackaged with different stats.

In comparison here we are before the Wii U is out and the software has already dried up for the Wii.

Nintendo software? Yes. 3rd party software? Nope.

Aside from Zelda, what Gamecube titles did Nintendo offer for Gamecube owners after the Wii came out?

After the Wii came out, from Nintendo? Other than Zelda and Baten Kaitos Origins? Nothing.

But from 3rd parties? Plenty of games were released. Mostly crap (same as PS2 and PS1 by the way). However, after 2007, there were no releases.

The point in all of this is that Sony itself does not support their consoles after the new one comes out as much as you think and as much as people think. 3rd parties, yes. Sony, nope.

 

[Fourth Storm]

As far as launch titles goes, up until recently I think many of us thought NSMBMii would land fairly early in. With the unveiling of the 3DS title, I no longer think this is the case. So what would be a big exclusive first party title?

Wishful thinking: Retro working on a proper Metroid 5 with Sakamoto. Much like the Prime games but taking place after Fusion and perhaps a third person view which uses the Wii U tablet for first person scanning and shooting if wanted. 360 view with the controller in a Retro title makes me drool.

I was thinking more in the lines of SNES-Alpha-EX-Turbo

Sounds catchy to me.

That's a great idea too!

 

[Rhod]

far less confusing, than one tablet and lots of remotes.

A thought: As soon as there are multiple controllers, it's a games machine and they get put in the drawer. That might fly in the face of what Nintendo want to achieve with Wii U. One iconic controller for the coffee table might fit better.

 

[A less bigoted Deku]

Importance of 2nd controller support is obvious.

They'd have to retail it somehow. I hope.

And when that happens, it opens the door for incremental upgrades to the controller, even if the box itself is a fixed quanity. That will offer some future proofing and entry into the low end tablet market if they so choose.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Importance of 2nd controller support is obvious.

They'd have to retail it somehow. I hope.

And when that happens, it opens the door for incremental upgrades to the controller, even if the box itself is a fixed quanity. That will offer some future proofing and entry into the low end tablet market if they so choose.

Very true. It would be easy for them to offer a true 720p touch screen somewhere down the road w/out breaking compatibility.

 

[guek]

hmmm. Interesting idea. Tiered controller SKUs? As long as the standard Upad isn't some horrible POS, I see nothing wrong with that. They couldn't do any big functional upgrades though. A Upad Pro with an OLED HD screen, better speakers, sleeker aesthetics, and an inductive charging dock would be a pretty cool niche device. If regular Upad controllers were $70 and a Upad Pro was $120, I'd be pretty happy with that.

 

[DECK'ARD]

A thought: As soon as there are multiple controllers, it's a games machine and they get put in the drawer. That might fly in the face of what Nintendo want to achieve with Wii U. One iconic controller for the coffee table might fit better.

A tough-sell for Nintendo though, at the end of the day they are about games and known best for social multiplayer. Sharing the same experience. Wii U as it stands is very lop-sided, it's a load of contradictions, which is why it was so confusing. Even the name Wii U / We You contradicts itself

They need to distill the concept down into something that's easy to get, like the Wii, and showcased by a killer-app. A couple of killer-apps actually. One that demonstrates the asset of the controller to the Nintendo fan, and one which demonstrates its wider appeal.

More than one controller would be especially helpful with the wider appeal, you can go off into boardgame-style experiences, hidden information from other players, secret communication between them if they go the whole hog with 4, there's loads you can open up social-gaming wise. Not to mention the not needing the TV thing is even better when you can keep 2 kids happy instead of one

Even something like Madden becomes much easier for people to get with more than one controller. Suddenly the tablet goes from a novelty to essential for a better gaming experience. That's what Nintendo have to get across, that the tablet isn't a novelty, that you'd be really missing out if you go for a system without it.

 

[Somnid]

I think as far as a second controller goes, especially initially they should shy away from it. Obviously such a proposition is expensive or at least requires someone else with a Wii U to participate.

If you look at the way Wii was successfully able to penetrate the market is by shows of multiplayer. People shared it with friends and family who decided it was something they too needed. Clearly if you make that expensive or prohibitive then it's pointless. Guests can't play multiplayer and can't experience the machine. People who have the console but no second controller can't access those features in games. It looks really bad. Sure there's potential and they shouldn't ignore it but to show a bunch of multi-tablet games at E3 would be completely idiotic as would it be to make a point of developing multi-tablet games until:

a) the cost of the second controller is reasonable as an accessory.
b) enough people have one that it adds value to software to people who already own the console.

Really they just need some sort of tech demos in every-man software or get 3rd parties to do it. They should not worry about it themselves at this point.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I think as far as a second controller goes, especially initially they should shy away from it. Obviously such a proposition is expensive or at least requires someone else with a Wii U to participate.

If you look at the way Wii was successfully able to penetrate the market is by shows of multiplayer. People shared it with friends and family who decided it was something they too needed. Clearly if you make that expensive or prohibitive then it's pointless. Guests can't play multiplayer and can't experience the machine. People who have the console but no second controller can't access those features in games. It looks really bad. Sure there's potential and they shouldn't ignore it but to show a bunch of multi-tablet games at E3 would be completely idiotic as would it be to make a point of developing multi-tablet games until:

a) the cost of the second controller is reasonable as an accessory.
b) enough people have one that it adds value to software to people who already own the console.

Really they just need some sort of tech demos in every-man software or get 3rd parties to do it. They should not worry about it themselves at this point.

That's the thing though for me, you don't have a great concept if its held back by the basics. By trying to sell a watered down version of that concept, for whatever reasons whether cost or the limitations of wireless streaming, you run into trouble. You are compromising, which makes the concept less compelling and why the Wii U as it stands is a bit of a mess. If someone's first question is "Why can't I do that?" then you've left out something fundamental.

I love Nintendo to pieces, but this has all been very un-Nintendo so far. Going with a concept without being able to properly realize it. At E3 they need the compelling reason to own one, and that will be made a lot easier and much more convincing by showing the full potential of the system and therefore the concept.

As said everything is a balancing act, and if you need one aspect to do it right adjust another aspect to facilitate it.

 

[radcliff]

As far as launch titles goes, up until recently I think many of us thought NSMBMii would land fairly early in. With the unveiling of the 3DS title, I no longer think this is the case. So what would be a big exclusive first party title?

Maybe Takao Shimizu's EAD Tokyo Group 1 is working on Mario WiiU. Besides having some oversight role of GREZZO when making OOT 3D and 4 Swords, we haven't seen a game from them since the original Super Mario Galaxy in 2007. A Mario game from this group at launch could be a possibility.

 

[Thraktor]

Very true. It would be easy for them to offer a true 720p touch screen somewhere down the road w/out breaking compatibility.

No it wouldn't. Whatever streaming tech they're using is going to provide just enough bandwidth to stream 854x480 video to a controller (or perhaps two controllers), and they'd need more than double that to stream 720p video. Besides, Nintendo had enough trouble getting developers to support the $20 Wii Motion+ (which was packed in with tens of millions of games), so I'd say there's pretty much zero chance they'd support a $100+ accessory which puts extra strain on the GPU.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Here's another idea. Instead of pack-in or pre-installed games, Nintendo should give all Wii U buyers a download token for a free game to highlight their online store and get people looking at what it has to offer. Do it kind of like how Sony did after the whole network hack. Have a pool of certain titles which are eligible and let users choose which one they like. For instance, a person w/ only the Wii U pad might want Dr. Mario while a person with a few Wii remotes lying around might like to try Battle Mii.

 

[A less bigoted Deku]

No it wouldn't. Whatever streaming tech they're using is going to provide just enough bandwidth to stream 854x480 video to a controller (or perhaps two controllers), and they'd need more than double that to stream 720p video. Besides, Nintendo had enough trouble getting developers to support the $20 Wii Motion+ (which was packed in with tens of millions of games), so I'd say there's pretty much zero chance they'd support a $100+ accessory which puts extra strain on the GPU.

That's the obvious conclusion; but if they are truly serious about service orientation, considering standards for what we expect form apps will evolve in the next 5-6 years, revised upads with more power, perhaps better processing and less requirement to be tethered to the console would make sense.

But if you just think in terms of the pair as a closed box, then yes, there's no reason to release new SKUs at all.

We'll know soon enough how ambitious they are. There's more risk to go with the view that they can upgrade it, less risk if they don't, but they also risk becoming completely outdated like the Wii and irrelevant. Having a upad/console combo is actually a unique way for them to upgrade the platform without requiring add ons in the current sense we understand it or releasing a completely new SKU.

That said, it needs to be sold as a controller and not say an add-on. And knowing how the industry works, games will be developed to work with the lowest common denominator, that's not to say they can't convince millions to upgrade for a game or some non-game application. That's where the money is made, as accessory margins tend to be much higher.

 

[Fourth Storm]

No it wouldn't. Whatever streaming tech they're using is going to provide just enough bandwidth to stream 854x480 video to a controller (or perhaps two controllers), and they'd need more than double that to stream 720p video. Besides, Nintendo had enough trouble getting developers to support the $20 Wii Motion+ (which was packed in with tens of millions of games), so I'd say there's pretty much zero chance they'd support a $100+ accessory which puts extra strain on the GPU.

We don't know the details of their wireless technology. I firmly believe they realize streaming to two controllers is a must for the system and have upgraded the system as a whole because of this. It would explain the rumors of the bump in power for final dev kits. If they planned on supporting two tablets, they'd have to bump everything presumably - RAM, GPU, I/O (possibly a multi-core ARM chip), etc.

If they can support two tablets simultaneously at 480p, one at 720p is not that far a stretch. It would be marketed more as a replacement for the TV then as a second controller. It could fill the same niche as the DSiXL in that it doesn't require "developer support." It would just be a better display, so you can play the games in their intended resolution without the TV.

 

[AceBandage]

A 720p Controller is not happening...

 

[Fourth Storm]

A 720p Controller is not happening...

Not 3 years from now?

Edit: They could still have the games resolution at 480p in instances of two player.

 

[A less bigoted Deku]

Well, even if you cut out the streaming at higher resolution thing, which I agree is technically a challenge and may require releasing a revised core box to handle it (even if its just to handle the extra bandwidth without adjusting for the power), what I'm thinking is what their goal is with the controller itself.

It will obviously start out as a companion, but I think there's a business model for them to pursue to turn it into an interface device that can do more and more things. There's certainly profits to be made for selling these devices, and if they want to, they can brand is as a really cheap device with some crossover appeal to people who may want tablet like features.

Regardless of what their goal is with the controller, if Nintendo is serious about delivering services to the uPad, I can't see them using the same one in 2017; But it's Nintendo, they've made mistakes like that many times.

 

[Somnid]

That's the thing though for me, you don't have a great concept if its held back by the basics. By trying to sell a watered down version of that concept, for whatever reasons whether cost or the limitations of wireless streaming, you run into trouble. You are compromising, which makes the concept less compelling and why the Wii U as it stands is a bit of a mess. If someone's first question is "Why can't I do that?" then you've left out something fundamental.

I love Nintendo to pieces, but this has all been very un-Nintendo so far. Going with a concept without being able to properly realize it. At E3 they need the compelling reason to own one, and that will be made a lot easier and much more convincing by showing the full potential of the system and therefore the concept.

As said everything is a balancing act, and if you need one aspect to do it right adjust another aspect to facilitate it.

But that's the thing, there is no real precedent here unless you count some PSP and GBA connectivity (and even then only 4 swords and Crystal Chronically really supported multiple devices, awesome as they were). If it is one then it's one and there are tons of ideas off a single controller. Asymmetric multiplayer is practically non-existent at this point, there's no limitation of ideas. It's not like it doesn't have heavy multiplayer capabilities that well exceed any existing console either (it's 5 player standard after all), they're just different.

It's sorta like how people complained about the lack of 4 Wiimote + nunchuk setups in early Wii years. Really this wasn't holding them back in any way, and some games had it but because of the way the setup had to worked and the accessory cost involved it was de-emphasized.

 

[Vinci]

I'm not saying that the Mario Audience will dry up. I never even mentioned Mario.

You suggested that Chase Mii and Battle Mii weren't fresh or new enough in order to entice people who enjoyed the experiences Wii provided them. And that's an awfully similar argument to what people say about Mario - that it doesn't change enough so why do people keep buying it? As in Mario's case, the next step for the Wii Sports crowd needn't be a revolution, but an incremental step towards a new implementation for an appealing core experience.

I'm simply saying that they won't get the WiiSports crowd back with Find Mii. It does not have the same novelty.

Here is what made the Wii successful, IMO:

1) It removed barriers to gaming by shifting controller paradigm.
2) It allowed people of wildly different ages and gaming experiences to play together.
3) It gave families and groups of friends the opportunity to see gaming as a spectator sport - ie. it allowed you to watch your uncle, aunt, grandmother, and grandson behave in an uncharacteristic way. One of the most successful multi-viewer experiences I ever found for my family in particular was Wii Fit. Even if it was mostly a single-player title, people loved watching others play it. It was hilarious and socially engaging.
4) Nintendo legacy IPs, yadda yadda.

Chase Mii and Battle Mii hit all of these, especially after some of the basic training gained by the Wii. You are seriously underestimating the premises of those test games to suggest that they won't appeal to a large audience. Even core gaming sites mentioned the inherent appeal of Chase Mii, in particular.

Especially when you consider that you can only have one or two people with the fancy new controller at once. It's just not going to hold the same appeal.

IMO, the only people who will bitch and moan about the fancy new controller will be traditional gamers. The mainstream just wants to have a good time with their friends and families - we're the only ones who get bent out of shape regarding the tech in our hands.

As for what they missed to go back to their roots, they needed to invest heavier in their own platform, something they did a lot on everything up until the Wii. It was just mind boggling how they sat on it for so long.

This I agree with, but there's nothing inherent to the Wii design that made this occur. Nintendo simply fucked up.

ANOTHER NOTE: I friggin' love the asymmetric nature of the Wii U. Frankly, I think it is compelling as hell and allows for multiple sorts of experiences with a single piece of software. That is genius, from my point of view. Color it as rationalization or no.

 

[A less bigoted Deku]

This I agree with, but there's nothing inherent to the Wii design that made this occur. Nintendo simply fucked up.

ANOTHER NOTE: I friggin' love the asymmetric nature of the Wii U. Frankly, I think it is compelling as hell and allows for multiple sorts of experiences with a single piece of software. That is genius, from my point of view. Color it as rationalization or no.

They fucked up by not releasing an upgrade. Pachter was right, they needed a Wii+ in 2009; it wasn't a software issue per se.

Iwata mentioned that they pulled back on the Wii to give 3rd parties room. This worked with the DS but not the Wii. Many commentators continue to underestimate just how much their DS strategy colored their Wii strategy and how both mirrored each other.

 

[AceBandage]

They fucked up by not releasing an upgrade. Pachter was right, they needed a Wii+ in 2009; it wasn't a software issue per se.

Iwata mentioned that they pulled back on the Wii to give 3rd parties room. This worked with the DS but not the Wii. Many commentators continue to underestimate just how much their DS strategy colored/mirrored their Wii strategy.

What? It was fully a software issue.
There was no magical thing that they could have released in 2009 that would have made Wii games run in HD nor that would have been able to run modern engines, short of a full brand new console, and then they'd be in an even worse position right now.

 

[Vinci]

They fucked up by not releasing an upgrade. Pachter was right, they needed a Wii+ in 2009; it wasn't a software issue per se.

The Wii suffered because Nintendo stopped producing software at a steady pace and failed to support smaller developers with great potential. It had nothing to do with hardware, IMO.

 

[A less bigoted Deku]

As noted, they pulled back intentionally as Iwata noted recently, hoping they could repeat the DS success where they slowed/stop development after 2006 and the software kept selling.

That didn't hapeen with the Wii and Iwata admitted they misread the market.

Yes, it's because software dried up from Nintendo, but no, it wasn't one of their unforced errors. They pulled back on purpose not because of a lack of capacity or capability.

My comment about a possible revision/new Wii in 2009 was more to the point of releasing a hardware that would have have renewed interest after Wiifit.

 

[AceBandage]

Any new hardware in 2009 would have been a very temporary fix.
They needed games, and nothing more.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

Considering for many occasions in the Wii's life Nintendo had serious problems offering software steadily, what are the realistic odds that gets better on HD hardware with increased budgets and tech constraints? It only seems to be a worse scenario, and we've been hearing about "better 3rd party support" for how long now? So realistically what do we really expect to see happen...

Hopefully we'll see more exclusive and 3rd party support considering the "multiplat landscape", but even if that were really true 99% of games would hit PC/Steam day and date.

 

[AceBandage]

Considering for many occasions in the Wii's life Nintendo had serious problems offering software steadily, what are the realistic odds that gets better on HD hardware with increased budgets and tech constraints? It only seems to be a worse scenario, and we've been hearing about "better 3rd party support" for how long now? So realistically what do we really expect to see happen...

Hopefully we'll see more exclusive and 3rd party support considering the "multiplat landscape", but even if that were really true 99% of games would hit PC/Steam day and date.

Nintendo has been expanding quite a bit recently, so hopefully the situation will be better.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Iwata also mentioned that they learned they can't get by with large gaps in between titles...

 

[udivision]

Nintendo doesn't need "exclusive" third party support. They just have to have it so that when Madden, Fifa, COD, and all the rest of the huge mutilplat games come out, more than 5% of the sales will be on thier system, and that their system will have a "real" version of it. I think the Wii U being HD capable with the dual analog setup is enough to guarantee that.

 

[civilstrife]

Iwata also mentioned that they learned they can't get by with large gaps in between titles...

Don't they "learn" that every generation?

 

[botty]

Iwata also mentioned that they learned they can't get by with large gaps in between titles...

Hopefully they fill those gaps with Nintendo's lesser known IPs, and some new ones.

 

[guek]

Don't they "learn" that every generation?

Well they did a pretty good job during the Wii and DS heyday, iirc. I think what Iwata meant was "we can't rely on candy-ass third parties to provide a decent 1st year of software"

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Don't they "learn" that every generation?

yes but now they have the early 3ds bomba to learn from, which is more significant.

 

[A less bigoted Deku]

Don't they "learn" that every generation?

They learn different versions of it

N64 era - complete abandonment by some publishers and heavily delayed titles like Zelda. The main criticism against them at the time were the delays. Even some of RARE's titles were delayed and got lumped into 'Nintendo always delays their games'
Lesson: They learned from this and stopped hyping too much too early. We now routinely get games announced weeks/months before release.

GameCube era - repairing damage done during N64 era. Publisher relations repaired, but small GC disc format and 3rd place finish limited 3rd party support.
Lesson: Increase userbase to allow third parties to succeed

Wii/DS era - Massive growth in mindshare, but while the DS has no real competition and quickly became the defacto standard for mobile games, the Wii, despite outselling the competition could not overcome this because the hardware was too different.
Lesson: Power parity with competition is important.

3DS launch - Big gap at launch to allow third parties to benefit.
Lesson: Without their own software to spur adoption, 3rd parties won't do it.

Ultimately their goal isn't to blanket every quarter with their games. They need publishers like Capcom to fill the gaps. MHTri's performance in Japan is probably what Iwata had in mind from the outset. I don't think that goal has changed, but their understanding on how far they can push it with just outside software has. They know they have to drop a bomb every so often to keep the ball rolling.

 

[SlipperySlope]

Why the heck doesn't Nintendo make a New Legend of Zelda?

I would eat that shit up. 3D Zelda gets old.

 

[Hiltz]

What's there to really learn from ?

Everything Iwata and Nintendo identify as issues with the Wii are common sense shit that everyone could predict from the get-go.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

What's there to really learn from ?

Everything Iwata and Nintendo identify as issues with the Wii are common sense shit that everyone could predict from the get-go.

On the other hand, limiting the Wii's power allowed them to price it lower than the competition and still make a very healthy profit. Combined with the lucrative sales and the Wii was very profitable for Nintendo.

 

[Hiltz]

On the other hand, limiting the Wii's power allowed them to price it lower than the competition and still make a very healthy profit. Combined with the lucrative sales and the Wii was very profitable for Nintendo.

I'm referring to all the obvious issues as to why the Wii was not good for third-parties. Why some couldn't take it seriously either due to one or a combination of things ranging from weak hardware, a specialized controller, least impressive online service, not ideal for multiplatform support and so on. Going so far as to point out things like the ridiculous memory storage issue the Wii had that didn't get fixed until 2009 with new SD card functionality.

It's crystal clear why Nintendo decided to make the Wii something very different from the traditional definition of what next-gen has meant to the industry and to consumers. Fortunately, it was a big hit , but Nintendo was really the only winner, leaving third-parties to figure out what software to make and for which of the two type of gamers. I'm not saying third-parties are innocent or anything,as they have a lot to be blamed for. It's just that when Nintendo designed the Wii, it did it in a way that made it more about the kind of console Nintendo wanted it to be and did less so for what third-parties wanted from it.

Based on what we know about the Wii U so far, it seems like this is Nintendo's attempt to not only attract third-parties for the reasons they want, but also to get back the core gamer market that largely belong to the 360 and PS3.

 

[A less bigoted Deku]

I'm referring to all the obvious issues as to why the Wii was not good for third-parties. Why some couldn't take it seriously either due to one or a combination of things ranging from weak hardware, a specialized controller, least impressive online service and so on. Going so far as to point out things like the ridiculous memory storage issue the Wii had that didn't get fixed until 2009 with new SD card functionality.
It's crystal clear why Nintendo decided to make the Wii something very different from the traditional definition of what next-gen has meant to the industry and to consumers. Fortunately, it was a big hit but at the end of the day, Nintendo was really the only big winner, leaving third-parties to scramble for scraps in their attempt to understand, experiment, and try to make successful games on it based on the console's target audience.

Well to be fair, almost everyone got the Wii wrong on both ends of optimism/pessimism spectrum. It is fair to say that there were fair expectations it would get better support than it did because of the precedence set by the DS, which Iwata admitted to looking to.

The Wii experience certainly reveals a truth, that the handheld and console markets really aren't the same.

 

[Hiltz]

Well to be fair, almost everyone got the Wii wrong on both ends of optimism/pessimism spectrum. It is fair to say that there were fair expectations it would get better support than it did because of the precedence set by the DS, which Iwata admitted to looking to.

The Wii experience certainly reveals a truth, that the handheld and console markets really aren't the same.

And that's a hell of a truth for Nintendo to learn.

 

[A less bigoted Deku]

And that's a hell of a truth for Nintendo to learn.

Sony learned that lesson too, in the same generation no less, but at much higher costs. Nintendo made bank with the Wii. I don't think anyone at Nintendo HQ is crying about it.



On first analysis at least, they had to wait until 2012 maybe 2011 if pushing it for the Wii's successor. WiiU's timing is prefect, especially given current market conditions likely forcing their competitors to tone down their technology budgets. They are launching first, but not too far out and will appear to have current gen tech. They just failed to find a credible phenomenon to fill in the gap between 2009-2011, hence my earlier note about having a Wii+ revision with more power to do more things. Perhaps a more active Wii channels scene with more apps would have helped, a Wii+ revision with more internal storage and more power to run those apps and perhaps multi-task apps would have been interesting. It would not have broken compatibility or fragmented the market but it would have expanded the role of the platform. Nintendo's failure to realize the channels concept as an early precursor to the iphone app system is probably one of those Nintendo failures worth mentioning. The thing had such promise.

 

[guek]

Eh, I think they should have launched Wii U winter of 2011. But that would have almost certainly assured a less powerful system, and even though I'm fully aware that power has historically had very little overall qualitative effects on the success of a console, less power would make me a bit more insecure about future 3rd party support.

 

[Dreamwriter]

Eh, I think they should have launched Wii U winter of 2011. But that would have almost certainly assured a less powerful system, and even though I'm fully aware that power has historically had very little overall qualitative effects on the success of a console, less power would make me a bit more insecure about future 3rd party support.

I doubt it would have affected system power at all, system power was decided probably 2 years ago - that's when 3DS system power was decided, two years before its announcement. That's the kind of thing you can't really change much last minute, it takes months to design a new system-on-chip package.

No, what would have happened with a Winter 2011 launch would be a lack of games, both first and third party, and that would have killed the system.

 

[guek]

I doubt it would have affected system power at all, system power was decided probably 2 years ago - that's when 3DS system power was decided, two years before its announcement. That's the kind of thing you can't really change much last minute, it takes months to design a new system-on-chip package.

No, what would have happened with a Winter 2011 launch would be a lack of games, both first and third party, and that would have killed the system.

both the 3DS and the Gamecube received hardware changes close to the last minute. I'm not confident the recent boost Wii U dev kits would have happened had it launched in 2011.

Of course if they had planned poorly, a 2011 launch would have sucked. What I mean is that they should have planned for a 2011 launch in the first place years ago. That obviously didn't happen.

 

[A less bigoted Deku]

both the 3DS and the Gamecube received hardware changes close to the last minute. I'm not confident the recent boost Wii U dev kits would have happened had it launched in 2011.

Of course if they had planned poorly, a 2011 launch would have sucked. What I mean is that they should have planned for a 2011 launch in the first place years ago. That obviously didn't happen.

Support for 2 upads, if that is really in, would be the only thing that would likely not have been possible in a Winter 2011 launch.

And what impact would going from 1g to 1.5 or 2gb of RAM be? As that seems to be the most credible change im hearing.

 

[guek]

Support for 2 upads, if that is really in, would be the only thing that would likely not have been possible in a Winter 2011 launch.

And what impact would going from 1g to 1.5 or 2gb of RAM be? As that seems to be the most credible change im hearing.

a 50-100% ram increase is pretty significant. It's like throwing another 360 in there! kindanotreally

 

[StreetsAhead]

a 50-100% ram increase is pretty significant. It's like throwing another 360 in there! kindanotreally

Does that mean Wii U will be 3-4X the power of the 360?

 

[ultrazilla]

Guys, so if I'm reading right, the newest Wii U dev kits had a significant
update? Popular opinion or "hints" aim it at the system ram being bumped up?
This thread moves fast!

 

[guek]

Guys, so if I'm reading right, the newest Wii U dev kits had a significant
update? Popular opinion or "hints" aim it at the system ram being bumped up?
This thread moves fast!

I think "significant" is stretching things. The thing is, we don't really know where the improvements were. All we know is that some devs had set target expectations for the Wii U and the last batch of dev kits a week or so ago surprised them by exceeding some of those expectations.

Does that mean Wii U will be 3-4X the power of the 360?

*shrugs* man, we don't know Myself and others are inclined to believe it'll be somewhere in that range, but those are just semi-educated guesses.

 

[bgassassin]

I think it's reliable, but it's also very vague. We don't know in which areas it exceeds the initial targets, nor do we know those initial targets to begin with.

I meant to respond to this sooner, but memory (system, eDRAM, cache) and cores seemed to be about the only thing Nintendo listed in the target specs. And by listed I mean gave tangible numbers compared to the other vague info. So those would be the only areas I can see that devs would know there was an actual improvement over the target specs. Unless they were able to hit a certain target with their GPU once it was on the smaller process. But from what I understand the GPU info wasn't really given in the target specs.