elrechazado
Banned
That controller has to cost a ton of money by itself right?
Wii U Speculation Thread of Brains Beware: Wii U Re-Unveiling At E3 2012
- Thread starter bgassassin
- Start date
- Status
elrechazado
Banned
What do you base this on?antonz said:
Grampa Simpson
Banned
Most guess around $60.elrechazao said:
elrechazado
Banned
Ok, so 40-60 to produce the controller - still seems significantly higher than other controllers, and must be factored in.
Fine, 80 Gamecubes then...BurntPork said:
No, I'm not saying this because of the 3DS, I say it because Nintendo likes small cases. Which is where the cooling - or lack thereof - comes into play. I already stated in another thread that, judging by the prototype cases, I expect maybe three times the cooling capacity of the Wii, so the system might draw up to 65W. That's still not exactly all that much, so some tradeoffs will have to be made.
pieatorium
Member
All depends on if they are going to look at the system as a whole and take a wash on making any "profit" on the controller or look to get better profit on all the components.elrechazao said:
what I mean is for example if $250 was the ballpark they are looking to sell at for profit on just the box, will they sell for $300 and break even on the controller or go for $325+ and look to make more profit.
I'm guessing because they are using full hardware backwards compatibility. Nintendo prefers this over emulation as seen in all their handhelds and the Wii. Which means Wii U has Flipper somewhere in the design.Naked Snake said:
I'm also wondering if Flipper could be used to drive the screen on the controller? Saving the GPU.
Naked Snake
Member
Instro said:
And that's exactly what I'm asking: Why can't the Wii U render Wii games at higher resolutions. I'm not asking about upscaling, which is useless since most new HDTVs do that well.
Maximilian E.
AKA MS-Evangelist
Gaffers,
Which price point has been speculated? over 300 dollars?
For my part, I really dont see this as a wise move to have a machine more expensive thatn 299 for nintendo, most preferrably under 299 to match the others and still sell with profit.
If NIntendo sells WiiU for 350 or more, then it will be like 3DS is selling now and once again Nintendo will have a machine that sells good numbers but mostly to the people who likes marios and zeldas (which is many).
If Nintendo wants to enjoy healthier 3rd party sales of the AAA games it now also can host due to the more powerful console, then it needs to be closer to PS360 price point in order to build a userbase quickly.
So therefore, im thinking less then 300 dollars for the machine..if above..then difficult times for nintendo..
Which price point has been speculated? over 300 dollars?
For my part, I really dont see this as a wise move to have a machine more expensive thatn 299 for nintendo, most preferrably under 299 to match the others and still sell with profit.
If NIntendo sells WiiU for 350 or more, then it will be like 3DS is selling now and once again Nintendo will have a machine that sells good numbers but mostly to the people who likes marios and zeldas (which is many).
If Nintendo wants to enjoy healthier 3rd party sales of the AAA games it now also can host due to the more powerful console, then it needs to be closer to PS360 price point in order to build a userbase quickly.
So therefore, im thinking less then 300 dollars for the machine..if above..then difficult times for nintendo..
Grampa Simpson
Banned
Actually I think that the Wii U could have really decent cooling.wsippel said:
This is the Wii.
The DVD drive in the Wii backs up to the heat sync. The Wii-U has a couple more inches (heh), and they could drop a big 'ol heat sync on it and duct it straight out the back or the side.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
I would fucking love if Nintendo pulled a vita and went $250 or 299
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Naked Snake said:
Someone will need to correct me no doubt, but I'm under the impression that emulation of older titles, particularly rendering them at higher resolutions, is a difficult thing to achieve and prone to bugs as well as stablisation issues. Its quite hard to have a new system running under new hardware re-render old games at higher resolutions.
For the Wii, each N64/SNES/NES game comes packaged with its own specific emulator. Not that rendering these games would have been difficult, but Nintendo were required to build a specific emulator to make sure each game was stable. In the case of the older PS3s, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure they contained an entirely seperate processor that was dedicated to running PS2 games for backwards compatability, and the reason current models have BC removed is because that processor was removed.
TLDR: Rendering old games at high resolution is difficult, and even with more muscle under the hood still not easy to accomplish on the Wii U.
Maximilian E.
AKA MS-Evangelist
duk said:
exactly!
Gamer @ Heart
Member
duk said:
Controllers have like a 300% markup. When they order parts in millions, i doubt it will cost them as much as we think.
Grampa Simpson
Banned
I just had an interesting thought. I've been assuming some sort of digital connection for the wireless video...., but what if it's just some NTSC-esque local broadcast to the controller. I don't know if there is any reason not to go retro on it.antonz said:
antonz said:
You could be right. I'm far from in the know on these sorts of things, but Michael Pachter was waxing on on The Bonus Round a few weeks ago and mentioned that he thought the controller would cost Nintendo maybe US$25. It was just going on assumptions about the screen being pretty basic and costing around US$12 for that component alone + all the rest. It might be higher but I imagine it's a lot less than we think.
The Wii Remotes, according various people (Pachter being one again) cost about US$6-10 to make apparently.
Grampa Simpson
Banned
Does anyone have a wholesale price list for LCD Panels?AzaK said:
Yep Wiimote right now costs $6 to manufacture.AzaK said:
I wont say 25 as I do think thats a little low. Id expect $10 going towards the battery alone. As Nintendo has gone with a new provider for camera I think its safe to say they are not sticking to .3MP as they have a .3 provider. Camera probably be 4-7 dollars.
About the cost to make the controller/retail price:
Despite what people may think, the controller may not be that expensive, albeit probably more than a standard controller.
For all intents and purposes, the WiiU controller is exactly the same tech and components as the Wii Remote Plus, which retails for 40 dollars, plus:
The screen
Whatever radio is used for the video signal
The sticks
Camera & IR lights (for "sensor bar")
Extra speaker for stereo, mic, headphone jack, etc.
Some of these, as you can see, are kind of a pittance, aside from the screen, though the fact that this stuff will stack does not elude me. The price of the Wii U controller is likely more, component wise, than a PS3 controller, probably, but a fair argument exists that the tech is basically Wii Remote Plus + Screen (+ Nunchuk, i guess). It's not that much more.
Despite what people may think, the controller may not be that expensive, albeit probably more than a standard controller.
For all intents and purposes, the WiiU controller is exactly the same tech and components as the Wii Remote Plus, which retails for 40 dollars, plus:
The screen
Whatever radio is used for the video signal
The sticks
Camera & IR lights (for "sensor bar")
Extra speaker for stereo, mic, headphone jack, etc.
Some of these, as you can see, are kind of a pittance, aside from the screen, though the fact that this stuff will stack does not elude me. The price of the Wii U controller is likely more, component wise, than a PS3 controller, probably, but a fair argument exists that the tech is basically Wii Remote Plus + Screen (+ Nunchuk, i guess). It's not that much more.
opticalmace
Member
Where do you get $4-$7 from?antonz said:
antonz said:
Okay, I admit I forgot about a pretty big thing with the rechargeable battery, which would probably be quite large. Anyone else have any idea on the component cost of such batteries? I couldn't find a price for an iPad battery other than the after market retail of $100+, which doesn't sound right.
Nintendo is now using the same company that supplies Apple their camera. Im guessing Nintendo is not going to use a 5.0mp camera which has a manufacturing cost of $9.75.opticalmace said:
Ipad battery has a $25 manufacturing cost.=HERO= said:
Nintendo is likely going to stick a much smaller battery in. we can get a general idea based on the size of the cover on the back of the controller
My predictions:
Nintendo will launch the console at somewhere above $350, possibly $399 or $379. Nintendo will not take a loss on the hardware, but they wont make a killing like they did with the wii and will rather settle for almost breaking even. The Wii will continue to be supported after the Wii U hits shelves, not with software but with aggressive price cuts and bundles. The Wii's near pure profit moneymaker status will be supported by Nintendo for as absolutely long as possible (likely a year or two at most). This will help offset the lack of profit made on each Wii U sold.
As for power, the Wii U will not be a full generational leap, and will likely struggle to really even reach the 1.5 marker. It will, however, be noticeably more powerful than the current gen, and will allow for some spectacular looking games. All rumors point to a pp7 and a rv700, which in all honesty is probably the exact kind of specs nintendo is interested in. Everybody keeps saying that making such a move will only serve to recreate the same wii/360/ps3 situation seen in the current generation. I'm not sure if nintendo realizes why this wont happen or if they're just high on their own hubris, but most games will be still be able to be downported to the Wii U from sony and microsoft's next consoles solely due to rising development costs. There may be a handful of games the Wii U wont be able to run at all, but most should be scale-able in the same way PC games are scaled down for their console counterparts. The main difference between Wii U and Wii development will be that Wii U games will hardly ever look downright ugly simply because we're now talking about hardware more powerful than the current gen. Diminishing returns is real in the sense that games will still be able to look better than they are today, but it's going to take many years before the best of the best of current gen games are considered as ugly as last gen's games are compared to the cream of the crop today.
Like I said before, Nintendo will leverage the Wii U's day 1 profitability with continued sales of the Wii. When Sony and Microsoft launch their next consoles, Nintendo will cut the Wii U's price by the time of their competitor's launch to undercut them by at least $100. Early xbox3/ps4 games will undoubtedly be up-ports of Wii-U games because that's how console launches tend to operate. Wii U will continue to get third party ports for as long as those titles continue to sell, which is all contingent on how much of a presence nintendo can make during their first year or so. If Colonial Marines turns out to be much more enjoyable on the Wii U, if battlefield gets a console up-port, if GTA V looks and runs best on Wii U, if third parties simply port over 360/ps3 games at 1080p 30fps or 720p 60fps LOCKED for at least a year, nintendo will regain the confidence of the fickle bunch known as the hardcore gamer. Well...unless their online is as archaic as it is today. Then they might be proper fucked.
Nintendo will launch the console at somewhere above $350, possibly $399 or $379. Nintendo will not take a loss on the hardware, but they wont make a killing like they did with the wii and will rather settle for almost breaking even. The Wii will continue to be supported after the Wii U hits shelves, not with software but with aggressive price cuts and bundles. The Wii's near pure profit moneymaker status will be supported by Nintendo for as absolutely long as possible (likely a year or two at most). This will help offset the lack of profit made on each Wii U sold.
As for power, the Wii U will not be a full generational leap, and will likely struggle to really even reach the 1.5 marker. It will, however, be noticeably more powerful than the current gen, and will allow for some spectacular looking games. All rumors point to a pp7 and a rv700, which in all honesty is probably the exact kind of specs nintendo is interested in. Everybody keeps saying that making such a move will only serve to recreate the same wii/360/ps3 situation seen in the current generation. I'm not sure if nintendo realizes why this wont happen or if they're just high on their own hubris, but most games will be still be able to be downported to the Wii U from sony and microsoft's next consoles solely due to rising development costs. There may be a handful of games the Wii U wont be able to run at all, but most should be scale-able in the same way PC games are scaled down for their console counterparts. The main difference between Wii U and Wii development will be that Wii U games will hardly ever look downright ugly simply because we're now talking about hardware more powerful than the current gen. Diminishing returns is real in the sense that games will still be able to look better than they are today, but it's going to take many years before the best of the best of current gen games are considered as ugly as last gen's games are compared to the cream of the crop today.
Like I said before, Nintendo will leverage the Wii U's day 1 profitability with continued sales of the Wii. When Sony and Microsoft launch their next consoles, Nintendo will cut the Wii U's price by the time of their competitor's launch to undercut them by at least $100. Early xbox3/ps4 games will undoubtedly be up-ports of Wii-U games because that's how console launches tend to operate. Wii U will continue to get third party ports for as long as those titles continue to sell, which is all contingent on how much of a presence nintendo can make during their first year or so. If Colonial Marines turns out to be much more enjoyable on the Wii U, if battlefield gets a console up-port, if GTA V looks and runs best on Wii U, if third parties simply port over 360/ps3 games at 1080p 30fps or 720p 60fps LOCKED for at least a year, nintendo will regain the confidence of the fickle bunch known as the hardcore gamer. Well...unless their online is as archaic as it is today. Then they might be proper fucked.
=HERO= said:
Don't forget materials & tooling (setup) costs to manufacture the controller (Industrial Design student talking here
) so that will add to the price a little bit. Also depends on what kind of plastic they use for the controller, as there are a range of plastics with varying levels of quality, it all depends on what kind of "feel" Nintendo want for the controller.From what I know already, product pricing usually takes into consideration R&D, labour, materials, tooling/manufacturing & packaging, deployment & marketing which is amortised over a number of years of manufacture. I'm sure I've missed something in the process there so feel free to correct me.
lowrider007 said:
The games aren't created at a higher resolution although some of the later first party games HUD elements (like New Super Mario) where much higher resolution images than they needed to be and didn't look out of place in Dolphin like most other games. The Dolphin emulator does all the work, and in the process breaks a ton of stuff in some games or just doesn't work with some games at all.
For example: Wind Waker is one of the best running games on Dolphin and doesn't require a monster CPU like Mario Galaxy, yet you have to disable a hardware feature in it to get rid of the Depth of Field because it was made for SD res in mind and looks terrible in HD. Also the heat blur effect in the first dungeon doesn't work right (or it's just that it doesn't play nice with the widescreen hack).
So if Nintendo were to actually try this for the WiiU they would need to have a team dedicated solely to constantly patching the emulation software but fixing a problem on one game can break comparability on another which could mean anything from graphical glitches, the game not working at all or the game suddenly crashing out of nowhere or due to some specific even in the game. This would be a huge pain in the ass for them to do and while most of us gaffers and the like would put up with these problems if they gave us Dolphin on WiiU type backwards comp, most people would just want their old games to simply work properly.
So ultimately Nintendo would go through all this costly hard work to have most people complain how their Wii games don't work properly.
bgassassin
Member
wsippel said:
So based on what you said is it possible that they will cut down on the amount of transistors, or is that even possible considering what's being used as the foundation? Or is that even necessary?
Gahiggidy said:I was going to post this in the Garden Demo thread, but this might be a good post t get this thread moving:
Something I noticed when looking at youtube video from E3.
Watch this clip starting at 22sec and you get a good glimpse of the hawk perched on the rock in the rain. Perhaps this is standard fair for graphic effects but you can see up lighting on the hawk that looks to be reflecting/refracting sunlight off the rock and water. Kinda neat and nothing I've seen in a video game before.
I clicked that link before reading the rest of your post and what you mentioned was one of the main things I noticed.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
BurntPork said:
Why would you think Futuremark or Epic? It's not like Nintendo's programmers are incompetent, it was internal Sony and Microsoft teams that made the tech demos for their respective platforms back in the day, and Nintendo has had plenty of time to familiarize themselves with modern architecture. Nintendo making it seems like a straightforward assumption to make unless we have had some comment from someone with actual knowledge on the subject to the effect that this is not the case.
Grampa Simpson
Banned
Actually, Mark Rein heavily hinted that the demo was Unreal Engine based.ThoseDeafMutes said:
Why?max-pain said:
If you have an argument against it being Power7, enlighten us. Otherwise you're not really adding anything to the thread.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Grampa Simpson said:
Even if that's true, running UE3 or what have you doesn't mean the demo wasn't made by Nintendo (just that it was using a licensed engine).
- Status