They have to actually provide in some ways proof of their statements.
Wii U Speculation thread IV: Photoshop rumors and image memes
- Thread starter Sadist
- Start date
- Status
They have to actually provide in some ways proof of their statements.
StreetsAhead
Member
Smiles and Cries
Member
every time they have one of those Nintendo's stock takes a dive though
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
I hope one of them asks about the teraflops. The have to.
Someone here said it went up by 3%
maybe it will break even after the meeting
I'm hoping for another appearance of that one investor who doesn't play games.
Besides Yamauchi.
Besides Yamauchi.
oh snap.
Meeting is tomorrow, I believe. Time unknown, but probably in the morning, Japan time.So, nothing from the investor's meeting?
But then again, E3 is actually right around the corner.
So, nothing from the investor's meeting?
But then again, E3 is actually right around the corner.
Meeting is tomorrow.
That's a good thing. I want Nintendo to always be wondering if they're really making the right decisions and business choices. I don't like them to ever be too confident -- I want to see them sweat. Panic mode Nintendo is best Nintendo. It forces them to put the Saki shots down and get to work cause their ass is on the line.
What? There's still a meeting tomorrow apparently.
With the Wii U's touchscreen, Nintendo chose to use the following currently known components:
- LCD instead of OLED
- SD instead of HD
- Resistive instead of capacitive
- Single-touch instead of multi-touch
- Limited controller portability instead full portability
I'm not going to pretend like I know anything about LCD and OLED/AMOLED, but I did read the following online about OLED's pros and cons: (please correct me if I'm wrong)
+bigger viewing angle
+ better refresh rate = sharper picture
+richer dark color levels
+energy efficient
+ equal to or greater than LCD in flexibility and size
- Currently has shorter life span as color fades sooner than LCD and LED in 3-4 years with significantly heavy usage.
- Costs more than LCD
As we've already seen with the 3DS vs. PS Vita, Nintendo chose to keep production costs down instead of using the better quality component. Sony, however, valued the importance of the technical superiority of OLED over LCD for the PS Vita. Of course, operating at a loss has been Sony's business model. LCD may not be as good as OLED, but it's adequate choice for Nintendo so it can contribute to making a profit off of hardware sales from the get-go.
SD vs. HD
First of all, only a console manufacturer like Nintendo would find reasoning in offering an HD home console that can stream a video game/ display separate content on the controller only in SD. The corporate heads of Sony and its R&D department would explode if someone had suggested the PS4 do what the Wii U does in terms of displaying the touchscreen in SD and not HD. Sony and perhaps even Microsoft, would rather go for superior quality components even if it means bleeding money. We'll really have to wait and see what Sony & Microsoft will do for their respective next-gen consoles. Of course, with the PS Vita, we know that Sony hasn't changed its business model as it's operating at a loss again for the next 2-3 years.
Nintendo wants to compromise because it would be an extravagant cost. Keeping production costs down was more important to the company than enabling the Wii U to maintain streaming games in HD. However, based on early hands-on impressions of Wii U, people have said that the quality of the screen remains surprisingly sharp and bright with 16:9 support. Plus, you've got the unique capability to have limited portability which in itself is a hugely attractive concept that potentially remains exclusive to Wii U once Xbox 3 and PS4 come out.
Again, Nintendo went for the "good enough" decision. Now I don't have a clue if there's any technical reason why Nintendo couldn't have used HD if it were ever an issue.
Resistive vs. Capacitive
From what I have read, capacitive technology, while newer and more expensive than resistive technology, offers better display when exposed to sunlight. In addition, it can support multi-touch whereas, resistive cannot. However, capacitive relies on an electrical signal and can only be used with one's finger and won't work with a stylus pen or any other inanimate object. With resistive, you can use your finger or an inanimate object as it only uses pressure.
Single-touch vs. Multi-touch
With single-touch, you have basic touchscreen capability like that of a mouse click. It's simple but effective. Multi-touch grants you more advanced control options for multi-tasking and just making some things more convenient but perhaps not necessarily appropriate for pin point accuracy depending on what you are using it for.Although, the difference in accuracy between the two is basically negligible.
Nintendo probably asked itself if more is necessarily better and had to draw the line somewhere. After all, the success of the Wii was aimed at not just offering different technology to change how we play games, but also to make it less intimidating for non-gamers by simplifying the controller and modeling it after the Tv remote. The Wii U is already complex enough since it features dual analog, motion control, camera, streaming, and NFC technology. Nintendo may have just viewed multi-touch as an overkill feature despite the beneficial uses it could have in some game genres and mainstream use in smartphones and iPads. Of course, since most resistive screens are single touch and capacitive being multi-touch, then Nintendo's choice of which component to use would dictate the other screen type. With that said, apparently, the resistive screen is becoming obsolete, but then again, this is Nintendo we are talking about. Even the 3DS still uses LCD resistive single-touch while PS Vita embraces the newer screen tech.
Going back to how Nintendo added a lot of controller options to the Wii U pad. Perhaps the decision to implement Near-field communication technology in the Wii U is because even if the components costs are high, the technology's usefulness outweighs the expensive manufacturing costs. Nintendo could afford to splurge on select components of the console's hardware.
Limited Portability
How come Nintendo won't make Wii U's controller a dedicated handheld ? Well, first that would clearly drive up production costs.People complain that they want 4 Wii U controllers to work with the system, but you guys aren't going to want to spend over $100 per controller, right ? Secondly, Nintendo envisioned the Wii U to still be kept in the living room with someone else being able to use the television while you play on the controller. Nintendo found a way to make the feature compelling enough while keeping production costs low. Nintendo could have decided to make the Wii U controller independent from the console box, but that would contradict what a home console is really about and put into question why bother with the 3DS at all ? Heck, if the 3DS battery charge lasts a mere 3 hours, then how long would an independent Wii U controller last?
Nintendo will make compromises on using weaker components if it means they can continue to make a profit from the start. Like the Wii and 3DS gamers, as long as fans continue to support Nintendo's products on adequate hardware, then Nintendo won't have to follow Sony and Microsoft's business models of bleeding money on cutting edge hardware for 3 years.
- LCD instead of OLED
- SD instead of HD
- Resistive instead of capacitive
- Single-touch instead of multi-touch
- Limited controller portability instead full portability
I'm not going to pretend like I know anything about LCD and OLED/AMOLED, but I did read the following online about OLED's pros and cons: (please correct me if I'm wrong)
+bigger viewing angle
+ better refresh rate = sharper picture
+richer dark color levels
+energy efficient
+ equal to or greater than LCD in flexibility and size
- Currently has shorter life span as color fades sooner than LCD and LED in 3-4 years with significantly heavy usage.
- Costs more than LCD
As we've already seen with the 3DS vs. PS Vita, Nintendo chose to keep production costs down instead of using the better quality component. Sony, however, valued the importance of the technical superiority of OLED over LCD for the PS Vita. Of course, operating at a loss has been Sony's business model. LCD may not be as good as OLED, but it's adequate choice for Nintendo so it can contribute to making a profit off of hardware sales from the get-go.
SD vs. HD
First of all, only a console manufacturer like Nintendo would find reasoning in offering an HD home console that can stream a video game/ display separate content on the controller only in SD. The corporate heads of Sony and its R&D department would explode if someone had suggested the PS4 do what the Wii U does in terms of displaying the touchscreen in SD and not HD. Sony and perhaps even Microsoft, would rather go for superior quality components even if it means bleeding money. We'll really have to wait and see what Sony & Microsoft will do for their respective next-gen consoles. Of course, with the PS Vita, we know that Sony hasn't changed its business model as it's operating at a loss again for the next 2-3 years.
Nintendo wants to compromise because it would be an extravagant cost. Keeping production costs down was more important to the company than enabling the Wii U to maintain streaming games in HD. However, based on early hands-on impressions of Wii U, people have said that the quality of the screen remains surprisingly sharp and bright with 16:9 support. Plus, you've got the unique capability to have limited portability which in itself is a hugely attractive concept that potentially remains exclusive to Wii U once Xbox 3 and PS4 come out.
Again, Nintendo went for the "good enough" decision. Now I don't have a clue if there's any technical reason why Nintendo couldn't have used HD if it were ever an issue.
Resistive vs. Capacitive
From what I have read, capacitive technology, while newer and more expensive than resistive technology, offers better display when exposed to sunlight. In addition, it can support multi-touch whereas, resistive cannot. However, capacitive relies on an electrical signal and can only be used with one's finger and won't work with a stylus pen or any other inanimate object. With resistive, you can use your finger or an inanimate object as it only uses pressure.
Single-touch vs. Multi-touch
With single-touch, you have basic touchscreen capability like that of a mouse click. It's simple but effective. Multi-touch grants you more advanced control options for multi-tasking and just making some things more convenient but perhaps not necessarily appropriate for pin point accuracy depending on what you are using it for.Although, the difference in accuracy between the two is basically negligible.
Nintendo probably asked itself if more is necessarily better and had to draw the line somewhere. After all, the success of the Wii was aimed at not just offering different technology to change how we play games, but also to make it less intimidating for non-gamers by simplifying the controller and modeling it after the Tv remote. The Wii U is already complex enough since it features dual analog, motion control, camera, streaming, and NFC technology. Nintendo may have just viewed multi-touch as an overkill feature despite the beneficial uses it could have in some game genres and mainstream use in smartphones and iPads. Of course, since most resistive screens are single touch and capacitive being multi-touch, then Nintendo's choice of which component to use would dictate the other screen type. With that said, apparently, the resistive screen is becoming obsolete, but then again, this is Nintendo we are talking about. Even the 3DS still uses LCD resistive single-touch while PS Vita embraces the newer screen tech.
Going back to how Nintendo added a lot of controller options to the Wii U pad. Perhaps the decision to implement Near-field communication technology in the Wii U is because even if the components costs are high, the technology's usefulness outweighs the expensive manufacturing costs. Nintendo could afford to splurge on select components of the console's hardware.
Limited Portability
How come Nintendo won't make Wii U's controller a dedicated handheld ? Well, first that would clearly drive up production costs.People complain that they want 4 Wii U controllers to work with the system, but you guys aren't going to want to spend over $100 per controller, right ? Secondly, Nintendo envisioned the Wii U to still be kept in the living room with someone else being able to use the television while you play on the controller. Nintendo found a way to make the feature compelling enough while keeping production costs low. Nintendo could have decided to make the Wii U controller independent from the console box, but that would contradict what a home console is really about and put into question why bother with the 3DS at all ? Heck, if the 3DS battery charge lasts a mere 3 hours, then how long would an independent Wii U controller last?
Nintendo will make compromises on using weaker components if it means they can continue to make a profit from the start. Like the Wii and 3DS gamers, as long as fans continue to support Nintendo's products on adequate hardware, then Nintendo won't have to follow Sony and Microsoft's business models of bleeding money on cutting edge hardware for 3 years.
There is no point in making all those things for this tablet controller
As it is not a true portable, nor meant to compete with Vita or replace 3ds, is limited in range and is not an independant system by itself
Wish people would get that and stop asking for those to drive up the cost for something that is not a game portable
As it is not a true portable, nor meant to compete with Vita or replace 3ds, is limited in range and is not an independant system by itself
Wish people would get that and stop asking for those to drive up the cost for something that is not a game portable
ColdBlooder
Banned
Why do people believe that they NEED HD res on a 6.2" screen? Thats insane. You get absolutely no benefit from the higher resolution on such a tiny screen.
But ofcourse, if you want throw logic out the window and want to enter a dick waving contest, then you will do it for bragging rights...
But ofcourse, if you want throw logic out the window and want to enter a dick waving contest, then you will do it for bragging rights...
ColdBlooder
Banned
Dito! 480p is absolutely sufficent for 6.2"
HD res would only be a waste of processing power. Nintendo does not like "wasting" power just so they can brag about having HD resolution on the uTab
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually gamers. Every gamer on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the game industry but you gaffers do not. You create new threads that multiply and multiply until the vbulletin post cap is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another thread. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Wii-U threads are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and the Wii-U itself is the cure.
Post cap, lol...
I post in a thread on another vBulletin board that currently has 233,539 posts.
ColdBlooder
Banned
I loved NintendoGAFs response to this particular post from radioheadrule83 ( http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=36863245#post36863245 )
Very civil and even with a hint of comedy.
Thats how you "not feed" a troll
EDIT: So whats with the NintendoGAF website now?
I have a docking bay for Wii that not only makes the console semi-portable but comes with a 10.5 inch LCD screen with a wide 16:9 aspect ratio. Since it connects directly through the console's AV output the image being displayed is always interlaced, as opposed to the image on the Wii U tablet that will be progressive (i.e. crisper, clearer, better). And yet, even at a resolution of 480i, with a screen that size, the image remains crisp and quite beautiful. Every game I've played on it looked great. Thus I honestly can't see anyone being concerned with the resolution of the Wii U tablet screen. And indeed, reports from various trade shows have made mention of the screen's impressive image quality.
I like this one even better. Conando would have a field day with it.
I'm about to catch up the thread...and some nice posts so far!!
But please, PLEASE do me a favour change back your avatar...it was better b4!!
Still about to catch up and saw that post....
I'm a gamer by heart and by today Nintendo has always delivered with all their consoles.
If I'm getting another console like PS2, Xbox or XBox360 it was always only because there were some games I was interested in that I could not get on a Nintendo console.
I never cared about the multimedia abillities of a console, therefor I have other devices.
Online with console I have first and only used with Wii CoD WaW and that was great fun.
Beside that online I will use with my PC.
I care about good offline multiplayer/Coop in games.
It pisses me really of that the whole fu**ing gamer world (so it seems) is so happy with DLC for games and all the patching shit.
I want a game that is finished if its sold in stores. not something like "ohh if you want to see that area of the game you have to buy the YOU ARE A DUMB ASS SO GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY - CONTENT"
Then they should wait 6 months longer and release the goty edition with all content as normal version and charge 10 Euro more for it...I wouldnt care to pay more if I have a finished product.
About the achievement stuff its most of the time getting on my nerves if it pops up at 360 and you cant see what happens on that part of screen...
Nope they dont really need to be there.
I agree. The Wii U res (that we know) has 20% higher DPI(158) than my iPad(132). It will be fine.
MatthewB92
Member
Any idea when the Q&A will come out? We normally learn a thing or two from that.
well if they don't make outrageous demands they won't something to complain about later now will they? :B
ColdBlooder
Banned
I think i found the most valid reason why next gen won´t introduce a huge graphical leap.
Looking back we got a HUGE jump from N64/PS Era to the GC/PS2/Xbox era. PS3 and Xbox 360 came with another HUGE jump thanks to cutting edge technology back when they were designed.
Because of constantly putting in the most advanced tech possible for a console, we have reached a point where the hardware would get way too expensive to be sustainable to get a "huge generational leap" this time around.
If you compare the graphically absolute BEST on both Xbox360 and PS3 and compare it to the graphical BEST on PC (While considering the insane hardware it runs on), you´ll get the idea. The difference isnt "humongous"
Yes i know that Consoles are optimized for games, but there usually 1 or 2 generations behind in technology compared to pc because a 1000$ console would be suicide!
For anyone who thinks "Avatar like graphics for next gen"... Avatar and other 3D Movies are rendered on a Render Farm like this (Example image and does not represent THE actual farm it was rendered on):
They are not renderd on your avarage PC. Unless you want to render for years...
Looking back we got a HUGE jump from N64/PS Era to the GC/PS2/Xbox era. PS3 and Xbox 360 came with another HUGE jump thanks to cutting edge technology back when they were designed.
Because of constantly putting in the most advanced tech possible for a console, we have reached a point where the hardware would get way too expensive to be sustainable to get a "huge generational leap" this time around.
If you compare the graphically absolute BEST on both Xbox360 and PS3 and compare it to the graphical BEST on PC (While considering the insane hardware it runs on), you´ll get the idea. The difference isnt "humongous"
Yes i know that Consoles are optimized for games, but there usually 1 or 2 generations behind in technology compared to pc because a 1000$ console would be suicide!
For anyone who thinks "Avatar like graphics for next gen"... Avatar and other 3D Movies are rendered on a Render Farm like this (Example image and does not represent THE actual farm it was rendered on):
They are not renderd on your avarage PC. Unless you want to render for years...
I think i found the most valid reason why next gen won´t introduce a huge graphical leap.
Looking back we got a HUGE jump from N64/PS Era to the GC/PS2/Xbox era. PS3 and Xbox 360 came with another HUGE jump thanks to cutting edge technology back when they were designed.
Because of constantly putting in the most advanced tech possible for a console, we have reached a point where the hardware would get way too expensive to be sustainable to get a "huge generational leap" this time around.
If you compare the graphically absolute BEST on both Xbox360 and PS3 and compare it to the graphical BEST on PC (While considering the insane hardware it runs on), you´ll get the idea. The difference isnt "humongous"
Yes i know that Consoles are optimized for games, but there usually 1 or 2 generations behind in technology compared to pc because a 1000$ console would be suicide!
For anyone who thinks "Avatar like graphics for next gen"... Avatar and other 3D Movies are rendered on a Render Farm like this (Example image and does not represent THE actual farm it was rendered on):
They are not renderd on your avarage PC. Unless you want to render for years...
lol thanks bro. even though people still won't listen smh
On the other hand. They really shouldn't announce a new name in front of investors...'cause they liked the wii-money.
The e3 is also just around the corner.
let's wait and see.
It doesn't mean anything. In 2006 Iwata gave a GDC speech where he referred their next home console as Revolution several times and then like a month later the Wii name was introduced.
Oh I misread BurntBork's post. I thought he said the WiiU mentions in the report mean there won't bean a name change ever. My bad.
That's part of Pixar's render farm. Avatar was rendered on Weta's farm - 34 racks with 32 HP blade centers per rack and 32 blades per blade center. ~40,000 CPUs, 107TB RAM. The racks filling the network equipment to connect the blade centers alone fills a room. Weta's render farm once was the most powerful supercomputer on the southern hemisphere.For anyone who thinks "Avatar like graphics for next gen"... Avatar and other 3D Movies are rendered on a Render Farm like this (Example image and does not represent THE actual farm it was rendered on):
They are not renderd on your avarage PC. Unless you want to render for years...
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
I think the investors are much more concerned about the teraflops than they are the Wii U brandname.
PFFFFFFT! Next-gen consoles should be twice as powerful as that! 2-year-old archaic tech.
Still about to catch up....
Epic I would like to see working on Metroid using an UE4-Version would be perfect for them to sell their engine to other developers.
But I dont think it will happen that way....
Maybe we will see Valve working on it or Bioware/EA....hmmm
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Oh no, sounds like a mass effect clone already.
axisofweevils
Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
Afternoon!
A Pachter quote....
“I don’t think Nintendo will be very profitable. The great unknown is the potential for the Wii U.” - Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter
A Pachter quote....
“I don’t think Nintendo will be very profitable. The great unknown is the potential for the Wii U.” - Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter
He's honesty repeating himself. And that last part reeks of confusion and redundancy.
I get confused whenever I see the name Pachter posted all over these boards as well.
"nintendo will not be profitable, but maybe they will be"
so... He will be right anyway. Cool!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked