Support NeoGAF

[KrawlMan]

Well, we could at least calculate the shipping...

Anyway, after the dismal reception that the Wii U has received and the 3DS looking like a joke, I don't think that Nintendo will go nuts again.

Sorry, retailer's cut and shipping* .

Let's just hope Nintendo is not truly oblivious to the fact that the 3DS price is a huge issue for many consumers (myself included). The 3DS is the first handheld I've been interested in since the GBA launched, but it's just not worth the current price. I'll probably give it more consideration around a $150-175 price point.

 

[plagiarize]

Except for the fact that they can.

People really need to stop talking about things like component cost and using that as the basis for a product's MSRP. That's not how it works. A company should price something based on what they believe they can sell it at. If that's $50 over production costs, $1,000 over production costs, whatever. It makes no difference. Nintendo stated that the 3DS's price was decided based on people's response to it at E3.

The fact that they've already sold millions of it at that price makes it clear that they weren't too far off the mark, especially given how few AAA games have hit the system thus far.

they actually said they'd upped the price after the positive reaction. on reflection that might turn out to be a bad move, but it guarantees that they have space for a price drop, without taking a loss on the hardware.

if indeed that's all true, i'm sure they'll pay heed to how things work out with that when pricing the Wii U. you can't blame them for trying after they underpriced the Wii.

Spoiler

yes. they underpriced the Wii. it was sold out for two years at $250. underpriced.

 

[Rolf NB]

Okay, so what do you think the CPU is based on?

Spoiler

IBM engineering experience gained from recent CPU architecture projects such as

Power 7

 

[BurntPork]

You say dumb, I say realistic. History and all of the information we have so far says something will happen, you disagree and say that something else will happen. There's realistic and there's wishful thinking so speculate till the moon explodes but realize that you're setting yourself up for disappointment if you think we're gonna get a huge jump because my prediction is spot-on because my prediction assumes 360 + 50% and that's all we should allow ourselves to be led to believe but I guess that would be dumb, wouldn't it?

There's so much room for error in that logic that it's not even funny. -_- Just forget it.

 

[Koopakiller]

There's so much room for error in that logic that it's not even funny. -_- Just forget it.

Please enlighten me. Unless you're just trolling.

 

[ReBurn]

Except for the fact that they can.

People really need to stop talking about things like component cost and using that as the basis for a product's MSRP. That's not how it works. A company should price something based on what they believe they can sell it at. If that's $50 over production costs, $1,000 over production costs, whatever. It makes no difference. Nintendo stated that the 3DS's price was decided based on people's response to it at E3.

The fact that they've already sold millions of it at that price makes it clear that they weren't too far off the mark, especially given how few AAA games have hit the system thus far.

Yep, in a market economy pricing is not dictated by cost as much as it is dictated by what people are willing to pay. Nintendo charges what they do because the market will pay it. When it comes to consoles, they aren't sold at a loss because companies are benevolent or have a clever market adoption strategy. They're sold at a loss because few people would pay what they actually cost to manufacture.

 

[Vinci]

they actually said they'd upped the price after the positive reaction. on reflection that might turn out to be a bad move, but it guarantees that they have space for a price drop, without taking a loss on the hardware.

if indeed that's all true, i'm sure they'll pay heed to how things work out with that when pricing the Wii U. you can't blame them for trying after they underpriced the Wii.

Spoiler

yes. they underpriced the Wii. it was sold out for two years at $250. underpriced.

Oh yeah, they definitely underpriced the Wii. They could've made significantly more on that system.

The thing people need to keep in mind is that Nintendo pushes 'innovation' not simply to distinguish itself from Sony and MS, but because it's the best way to create value in a product using 'withering technology.' It keeps their costs down and allows them to hit a price-point capable of mainstream acceptance.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

The A8 is an in order architecture, the A9 is out of order.

Ah. That's the other way around though.

 

[BurntPork]

Please enlighten me. Unless you're just trolling.

I'm talking specifically about your calculation method. You believing that it's only 50% more powerful is sound (though that probably won't be true of the final hardware, seeing as there is no final hardware).

Honestly, I think that you know that such a calculation doesn't even remotely work, so I won't nitpick.

 

[ombz]

I hate how Nintendo is using the term HD to refer to how powerful their system is. I want to more about the system than what resolution it can output. No matter how many polygons it pushes or shaders it supports if runs in HD resolution its still an "HD" system.

 

[ShinNL]

they actually said they'd upped the price after the positive reaction. on reflection that might turn out to be a bad move, but it guarantees that they have space for a price drop, without taking a loss on the hardware.

if indeed that's all true, i'm sure they'll pay heed to how things work out with that when pricing the Wii U. you can't blame them for trying after they underpriced the Wii.

Spoiler

yes. they underpriced the Wii. it was sold out for two years at $250. underpriced.

But hardware being sold out is a good thing. It was correctly priced. If the 3DS was €200, I think it would've been sold out too. Which is a good thing. Demand > Supply = good. Demand < Supply = not so good.

 

[Vinci]

But hardware being sold out is a good thing. It was correctly priced. If the 3DS was €200, I think it would've been sold out too. Which is a good thing. Demand > Supply = good. Demand < Supply = not so good.

Generally, you're right, but there is some variance. Ideally, supply would match demand rather than be overwhelmed by it, but... that's certainly not what's happening in the 3DS's case. What is happening is that Nintendo is making more per unit sold than they would've otherwise. Yes, this means they are selling less - but given that they haven't released much to provide great incentive for purchasing it compared to its predecessor, it's a bit early to suggest that Nintendo made a mistake with its pricing. Also, there's the possibility that if they sold it at $199, demand would've blown beyond supply - which means they're losing money.

 

[BurntPork]

But hardware being sold out is a good thing. It was correctly priced. If the 3DS was €200, I think it would've been sold out too. Which is a good thing. Demand > Supply = good. Demand < Supply = not so good.

Not for two years. That means that they could have priced it higher, which means that they could have profited a lot more. Then they could have lowered the price sooner once demand died down. If being sold out were the only important thing, everything would be sold at cost or less.

 

[guek]

Please enlighten me. Unless you're just trolling.

You cite history but seem to ignore completely nintendo's the development process of nintendo's past consoles. They're not going to simply base their next console off the hardware of a competitor. Nintendo has always based their consoles on their own internal wants and needs. The architecture of the gamecube, and by extension the wii, has nintendo's fingerprints all over it as far as customization and optimization choices go.

There's also the fact that nintendo has NOT forever and always operated in the same way as they did this generation. Everyone is so quick to forget how they handled hardware with the gamecube. They're not above thin profit margins for the initial debut of a console or machine. The 3DS is also a piss poor example of any kind of precedent because they've gone on records stating the only reason it was priced so high was because of the public reaction to the device. If nintendo thought they could sell the Wii U for $599 and have widespread penetration, they'd do it, but I don't think they're so arrogant as to believe the Wii U is being received as well as the 3DS was initially. So for the most part, you're "history" argument is pretty much BS.

Finally, you like most skeptics out there are quick to jump on some rumors but ignore others. Yes there's a rumor going around that it has "50% more processing power than the PS/360." Do you even know what this means? Because frankly, it's a nonsense quote that could mean any number of things. It does not necessarily translate as you would like to believe to 50% more power. You're also discounting pretty much every single other rumor out there. We have statements ranging anywhere from significantly more powerful to slightly less powerful than the current gen. There's also the fact that devkits aren't finalized, so most leaks aren't all that reliable in the long run. The rumor mill has consistently been pounding on two details again and again when it comes to actual components: A Power 7 based processor and a rv700 based gpu. Of course the actual capabilities of a machine based on those parts is widely variable depending on customization, but it seems to give little credence to your claim that the Wii U will simply be a "slightly beefier 360."

Ultimately, I don't think you're basing your assumptions off of any kind of super faulty logic, but you do seem to ignore the fact that you are indeed making assumptions and that at this point, very little is really set in stone.

 

[DaSorcerer7]

You cite history but seem to ignore completely nintendo's the development process of nintendo's past consoles. They're not going to simply base their next console off the hardware of a competitor. Nintendo has always based their consoles on their own internal wants and needs. The architecture of the gamecube, and by extension the wii, has nintendo's fingerprints all over it as far as customization and optimization choices go.

There's also the fact that nintendo has NOT forever and always operated in the same way as they did this generation. Everyone is so quick to forget how they handled hardware with the gamecube. They're not above thin profit margins for the initial debut of a console or machine. The 3DS is also a piss poor example of any kind of precedent because they've gone on records stating the only reason it was priced so high was because of the public reaction to the device. If nintendo thought they could sell the Wii U for $599 and have widespread penetration, they'd do it, but I don't think they're so arrogant as to believe the Wii U is being received as well as the 3DS was initially. So for the most part, you're "history" argument is pretty much BS.

Finally, you like most skeptics out there are quick to jump on some rumors but ignore others. Yes there's a rumor going around that it has "50% more processing power than the PS/360." Do you even know what this means? Because frankly, it's a nonsense quote that could mean any number of things. It does not necessarily translate as you would like to believe to 50% more power. You're also discounting pretty much every single other rumor out there. We have statements ranging anywhere from significantly more powerful to slightly less powerful than the current gen. There's also the fact that devkits aren't finalized, so most leaks aren't all that reliable in the long run. The rumor mill has consistently been pounding on two details again and again when it comes to actual components: A Power 7 based processor and a rv700 based gpu. Of course the actual capabilities of a machine based on those parts is widely variable depending on customization, but it seems to give little credence to your claim that the Wii U will simply be a "slightly beefier 360."

Ultimately, I don't think you're basing your assumptions off of any kind of super faulty logic, but you do seem to ignore the fact that you are indeed making assumptions and that at this point, very little is really set in stone.

Excellent post

 

[Luigiv]

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.

Looks like a simple projected texture. Probably wouldn't work in a gameplay scenario.

 

[StevieP]

Maybe on the Xbox 360 cores. Beefed up a little.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/07/ibm-puts-watsons-brains-in-nintendo-wii-u/

Wow, the XBox 360 (and Sony's) PPEs were based on Watson (P7) tech, and not stripped down P5 tech? The more you learn. Thanks GAF!

 

[plagiarize]

But hardware being sold out is a good thing. It was correctly priced. If the 3DS was €200, I think it would've been sold out too. Which is a good thing. Demand > Supply = good. Demand < Supply = not so good.

it's only a good thing if you wouldn't still be sold out at a higher price. since the Wii was sold out for two years at $250, i think it's safe to say that it would have been sold out for at least one of those years at a higher price.

then you can just take however many Wii's nintendo sold in that first year, and multiply it by $50 (or $25) to see how much money nintendo missed out on.

the 3DS looks to be over priced currently. the right software could start it selling at the current price, but we don't really know yet. that's why i think this could still go either way. in six months we'll have the benefit of hindsight, and we'll know for sure.

 

[Rolf NB]

Ah. That's the other way around though.

Wat no. Xenon is in-order.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Wat no. Xenon is in-order.

Exactly.

You can go in-order to out-of-order, but not the other way around.

 

[Rolf NB]

Exactly.

You can go in-order to out-of-order, but not the other way around.

Still don't get it. A8 to A9 was a transition from an in-order design to OOOE. Same thing could be done with Xenon cores (or Cell PPE, which is almost the same thing anyway): "beef 'em up" by making them OOOE somehow plus other tweaks. How is this "the other way around"?

And actually, yeah, you can go back. When IBM designed Xenon, they had just done a bunch of OOOE designs (G4, G5). But they decided to simplify and go back to in-order designs for their console deals anyway.

 

[ElFly]

The whole watson/power7 is based on engadget's secret reports, and not necessarily true.

 

[max-pain]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/07/ibm-puts-watsons-brains-in-nintendo-wii-u/

Wow, the XBox 360 (and Sony's) PPEs were based on Watson (P7) tech, and not stripped down P5 tech? The more you learn. Thanks GAF!

The only problem that absolutely no other source of this. And nothing in IBM's press release indicate this.

 

[wsippel]

The only problem that absolutely no other source of this. And nothing in IBM's press release indicate this.

The press release confirms the use of eDRAM. The only two IBM processors using IBM/ Qimonda eDRAM cache technology are Power7 and PowerPC-A2, which isn't even out yet. eDRAM is one of the key features behind Watson.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Still don't get it. A8 to A9 was a transition from an in-order design to OOOE. Same thing could be done with Xenon cores (or Cell PPE, which is almost the same thing anyway): "beef 'em up" by making them OOOE somehow plus other tweaks. How is this "the other way around"?

And actually, yeah, you can go back. When IBM designed Xenon, they had just done a bunch of OOOE designs (G4, G5). But they decided to simplify and go back to in-order designs for their console deals anyway.

He's not talking about the designs going from In order to order of order, he's talking about taking programming from an Out of Order chip and trying to run it in an In order chip. You can run In order on an out of order chip, not the other away around.

You also can't just flip a switch and make a chip Out of Order, or In order. It requires completely reworking the design, to the point where it wouldn't be a Xenon based chip any more. One could say why do that with Xenon when you already have a great OOOE design in the power7 chip that can be stripped down into a custom console chip.

 

[max-pain]

The press release confirms the use of eDRAM. The only two IBM processors using IBM/ Qimonda eDRAM cache technology are Power7 and PowerPC-A2, which isn't even out yet. eDRAM is one of the key features behind Watson.

IBM is slowly moving away from sram to edram because it's much more dense. It's just a logical step for them to use as a cache.

 

[guek]

The press release confirms the use of eDRAM. The only two IBM processors using IBM/ Qimonda eDRAM cache technology are Power7 and PowerPC-A2, which isn't even out yet. eDRAM is one of the key features behind Watson.

 

[guek]

In all seriousness, the wii U is definitely NOT going to get some off the shelf power 7 processor. At this stage though, from what little we do know, it's just more likely that the basis of the wii U's CPU is going to be the power 7 rather than the power 5, IBM's older out of order processor. It'll almost certainly be heavily modified and may not even yield the kind of performance you'd expect, but it's just highly unlikely that the architecture is going to be based on anything other than a power 7.

 

[KrawlMan]

it's only a good thing if you wouldn't still be sold out at a higher price. since the Wii was sold out for two years at $250, i think it's safe to say that it would have been sold out for at least one of those years at a higher price.

then you can just take however many Wii's nintendo sold in that first year, and multiply it by $50 (or $25) to see how much money nintendo missed out on.

the 3DS looks to be over priced currently. the right software could start it selling at the current price, but we don't really know yet. that's why i think this could still go either way. in six months we'll have the benefit of hindsight, and we'll know for sure.

You are making a pretty big assumption in thinking that a $300 price tag would have sat just as well with early adopters as the $250 one.

The Wii exploded not necessarily because of how it was advertised, but because of word of mouth. Whose to say that there would have been just as many early adopters at $300 as there were at $250.

 

[wsippel]

IBM is slowly moving away from sram to edram because it's much more dense. It's just a logical step for them to use as a cache.

Of course. And? I'm just trying to give a possible explanation for that quote.

 

[Eteric Rice]

I suspect that it'll be more powerful than the 360 and PS3, but not by a whole lot. Might have more RAM though, since that seems to be the bottleneck for most devs. I think Nintendo is hoping that Sony and MS do the same.

They might get their wish, simply because development costs are already so high. We've already heard publishers say that they don't want a new generation.

We need more information, though. Hopefully TGS sheds some light on some things.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Still don't get it. A8 to A9 was a transition from an in-order design to OOOE. Same thing could be done with Xenon cores (or Cell PPE, which is almost the same thing anyway): "beef 'em up" by making them OOOE somehow plus other tweaks. How is this "the other way around"?

And actually, yeah, you can go back. When IBM designed Xenon, they had just done a bunch of OOOE designs (G4, G5). But they decided to simplify and go back to in-order designs for their console deals anyway.

But you're not going to be able to run Wii code on an in-order processor, which the Xenon is.

What's easier, implementing new features on a 6 or 7 year old design, or subtracting features from a 2 year old design?

I was also under the impression that in-order and out-of-order were fairly fundamental parts of the core, and not simple bags on the side.

 

[Lance Bone Path]

Not for two years. That means that they could have priced it higher, which means that they could have profited a lot more. Then they could have lowered the price sooner once demand died down. If being sold out were the only important thing, everything would be sold at cost or less.

Being sold out for two years was basically two years of free publicity. I doubt increased profits from a higher price would have been able to cover the cost of equivalent publicity in the case where supply was meeting demand.

 

[Haint]

you'd think that people would realise that when they see that it's only $25 more expensive than the DSi in 2009 is according to this.

there's no way that's right.

so what, do they think the DSi XL is more expensive to make than the 3DS?

Do huh now? How does a still substantially a cheaper DSi in 2009 say anything about a still more expensive 3DS in 2011? Components get cheaper over time, and when you're dealing with way out of date custom parts (which I'm sure includes certain aspects of the DS), costs are often in the same ballpark (if not the same price or cheaper) when upgrading to more modern bits that are far more powerful, of a higher resolution, or of a higher capacity. Sure, these are just estimates--they're not exact and omit a few things, but they're probably fairly close. There are actually multiple 3DS tear downs from different firms (not just this single $103 value) that wind up at the same number: ~$100 +/-. Shipping in the bulk Nintendo deals in probably ends up being $2-3 per unit--manufacturing another $2-3 per unit. I would be shocked if licensing fees amount to anything more than $5 per unit (if that). It seems like the fees on these smaller brand chips are usually very very cheap. The software/OS is just a variation on the DSi/XL version, likely entirely in house and proprietary, designed around side stepping any and all patents imaginable (this is Nintendo after all--see DVD). Realistically, all or most things included, every 3DS unit probably carries a cost of $115-120. Retail cut is probably $30-50. All told Nintendo is pretty likely pocketing $80-100 per unit easy. Remember they were no doubt originally targeting $199 and would still have had a tidy profit built into that (again, this is Nintendo after all), so that extra $50 is just guaranteed gravy profit.

 

[BurntPork]

You are making a pretty big assumption in thinking that a $300 price tag would have sat just as well with early adopters as the $250 one.

The Wii exploded not necessarily because of how it was advertised, but because of word of mouth. Whose to say that there would have been just as many early adopters at $300 as there were at $250.

Did you not see the insanity that was going on on eBay?

Being sold out for two years was basically two years of free publicity. I doubt increased profits from a higher price would have been able to cover the cost of equivalent publicity in the case where supply was meeting demand.

Considering the extra profit would have come out to hundreds of millions, I highly disagree, and clearly so does Nintendo.

 

[max-pain]

Of course. And? I'm just trying giving a possible explanation for that quote.

I'm just trying to say, that the cache type (sram, edram or something else) is not important when we talking about architecture.

 

[StevieP]

Do huh now? How does a still substantially a cheaper DSi in 2009 say anything about a still more expensive 3DS in 2011? Components get cheaper over time, and when you're dealing with way out of date custom parts (which I'm sure includes certain aspects of the DS), costs are often in the same ballpark (if not the same price or cheaper) when upgrading to more modern bits that are far more powerful, of a higher resolution, or of a higher capacity. Sure, these are just estimates--they're not exact and omit a few things, but they're probably fairly close. There are actually multiple 3DS tear downs from different firms (not just this single $103 value) that wind up at the same number: ~$100 +/-. Shipping in the bulk Nintendo deals in probably ends up being $2-3 per unit--manufacturing another $2-3 per unit. I would be shocked if licensing fees amount to anything more than $5 per unit (if that). It seems like the fees on these smaller brand chips are usually very very cheap. The software/OS is just a variation on the DSi/XL version, likely entirely in house and proprietary, designed around side stepping any and all patents imaginable (this is Nintendo after all--see DVD). Realistically, all or most things included, every 3DS unit probably carries a cost of $115-120. Retail cut is probably $30-50. All told Nintendo is pretty likely pocketing $80-100 per unit easy. Remember they were no doubt originally targeting $199 and would still have had a tidy profit built into that (again, this is Nintendo after all), so that extra $50 is just guaranteed

Goldfish memory.

I'm just trying to say, that the cache type (sram, edram or something else) is not important when we talking about architecture.

You were, earlier in the thread, claiming that it would be based on the PPE in Cell/Xenon. That's just not possible.

 

[max-pain]

You were, earlier in the thread, claiming that it would be based on the PPE in Cell/Xenon. That's just not possible.

Yeah, it's absolutely not...

 

[wsippel]

I'm just trying to say, that the cache type (sram, edram or something else) is not important when we talking about architecture.

The eDRAM was specifically highlighted in the Engadget article. "Same processor technology" can mean a lot of things, but the eDRAM is one feature Wii U and Watson actually have in common.

 

[Rolf NB]

But you're not going to be able to run Wii code on an in-order processor, which the Xenon is.

Oh so this was about backwards compatibility?
But of course you can still run the code, assuming the same instruction set, it'll just run a little slower on the in-order architecture. That you can offset with higher clock speeds, and bam, still compatible.

What's easier, implementing new features on a 6 or 7 year old design, or subtracting features from a 2 year old design?

I was also under the impression that in-order and out-of-order were fairly fundamental parts of the core, and not simple bags on the side.

Removing features is always easier than adding, sure. Just hypothetically, they could have developed Xenon/PPE/whatever you want to call their embedded PPC breed further, in the five+ years that have passed. Taking their current flagship architecture and cutting it down isn't the only plausible scenario.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Oh so this was about backwards compatibility?
But of course you can still run the code, assuming the same instruction set, it'll just run a little slower on the in-order architecture. That you can offset with higher clock speeds, and bam, still compatible.

But you're then missing the part that reorders the instructions. I am not a microprocessor designer, so I can't say it won't work, but to my understanding it doesn't.

 

[Lance Bone Path]

Considering the extra profit would have come out to hundreds of millions, I highly disagree, and clearly so does Nintendo.

I suppose a $500 million advertising campaign like the one for Kinect done over the course of two years might have been coverable by increased profits, if Nintendo also had increased wii production rates as well, but messing with production lines isn't really the Nintendo way.

 

[Pungza]

Haha, has this been posted? So many Wii U threads...

What was the problem they were trying to solve with the Wii U, I asked Miyamoto. Was it that gamers and non-gamers get into power struggles for the television?

"That played into it a little bit," he said, but that's not the main problem. The main problem is an issue that all consoles face.

"When you look at most TVs in home nowadays it takes awhile for them to turn on," he said. "That becomes a barrier for people."

http://kotaku.com/5814227/how-the-wii-u-one-ups-television

 

[Zoda]

It will have HD Zelda, HD Mario, and HD Metroid.

Soooooo who cares about specs?

 

[max-pain]

The eDRAM was specifically highlighted in the Engadget article. "Same processor technology" can mean a lot of things, but the eDRAM is one feature Wii U and Watson actually have in common.

Exactly, we only know this for sure. It's in IBM's press release. The "same processor technology" only reported by engadget, and we don't know what they mean under that (or what is their source).

 

[wsippel]

Oh so this was about backwards compatibility?
But of course you can still run the code, assuming the same instruction set, it'll just run a little slower on the in-order architecture. That you can offset with higher clock speeds, and bam, still compatible.

A much bigger problem regarding binary compatibility is that Broadway binaries don't even run on regular Power architecture processors as is. Gekko and Broadway use a custom SIMD unit incompatible with any off-the-shelf processor.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Haha, has this been posted? So many Wii U threads...





http://kotaku.com/5814227/how-the-wii-u-one-ups-television

Yes. In another thread.

 

[M3d10n]

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.

It's simple: the original games were not programmed to be rendered at a higher resolution. Doing is guaranteed to introduce glitches because there isn't a single function of the hardware that you can override and instantly get a higher resolution without any glitches, and a mere look at the evolution of emulators like Dolphin shows this:

- The emulator overrides the framebuffer creation command so it creates a higher resolution one.
- Some games 2D elements don't scale to fit the new resolution.
- The authors add a hack to scale the 2D view matrix so these games work.
- Now there are seams in some 2D elements in some games. More game-specific hacks are introduced.
- Post processing effects (like DOF and glow) show up wrong or are blurry.
- It turns out these effects render to off-screen framebuffers, and these must be made higher resolution too.
- The effects works in some games, not in others. Also the shadows in some games get broken because they are now rendered at a different resolution. More per-game hacks are needed to tweak case-by-case.
- And so on...

These HLE emulators that can render at different resolutions take several years to be "perfect": Dolphin's first version was released in 2003. It has been eight years and there are tons of GC games it cannot run properly. Project 64 and ePSXe's GPU plugins also took several years before they had acceptable compatibility.

Even with hardware BC, Nintendo has a QA team that goes through pretty much every BC game to make sure they work. Requiring per-game fixes to make them compatible with HD would make the process unacceptably expensive. Heck, even the PS2's extra PSOne BC features like bilinear filtering and faster CD access caused glitches in a good number of games.

The only instances in commercial emulation where 3D games actually ran at higher resolution or with added AA are: Bleemcast, the Xbox 360 BC and the N64 VC games. In all cases a limited number of games was actually compatible and the emulator had to be heavily tweaked case-by-case (and in the 360 case, several games were actually recompiled for the 360).

 

[Fess]

It will have HD Zelda, HD Mario, and HD Metroid.

Soooooo who cares about specs?

Best post in this thread so far =)

Seriously though, I think it would be nice if it was as powerful as 360/PS3, but I wouldn't care if it was slightly less powerful either as long as it runs the games in HD res and use the second screen in a unique, meningsful and fun way. The second screen is most definitely what will drive the sales for the Wii U. The specs regarding it's power is just fuel for silly fanboy wars.

 

[BurntPork]

I suppose a $500 million advertising campaign like the one for Kinect done over the course of two years might have been coverable by increased profits, if Nintendo also had increased wii production rates as well, but messing with production lines isn't really the Nintendo way.

You're assuming that they would have spent that much on advertising is it hadn't been sold out for so long, which is ridiculous. The truth is that they most likely still would have sold-out at $300, just not for as long. They would have still gotten the word-of-mouth publicity, and then they would have been able to drop the price sooner, which would gain more publicity, though not all of that would be free. Believe it or not, there's actually a small chance that the higher price would have resulted in more sales in the long-run/