Wii U Speculation Thread of Brains Beware: Wii U Re-Unveiling At E3 2012
- Thread starter bgassassin
- Start date
- Status
Risk Breaker
Member
Terrell said:
Because we already have things like this (first gifs I've found on my HD)
On current (5 years old) hardware and we gamers usually want MORE and by MORE I mean LOTS more. Even if its a tech demo, look at the samaritan demo and you'll see what a lot of people actually want in new hardware, me included.
Also, things look a lot better in gif form than they do in a 40" screen.
herzogzwei1989
Banned
I expect Wii U to be Shader Model 4.1 and Xbox 3 to be somewhat beyond Shader Model 5.0 like Xbox 360 was beyond 3.0. Unless Microsoft decides to make Xbox3 a DirectX 12 machine, then it would be 6.0. If Sony & Nvidia decide to give PS4 a custom Maxwell GPU, then PS4 will be 6.0 as well. The Wii U is going to be significantly behind Xbox3,PS4, but not as badly as Wii was behind 360/PS3.
Xbox 360 was more than 10x as powerful as Wii. In GPU floating point performance, 360 was like 18x Wii (Xenos: 240 GFLOPs vs Hollywood: 12.9 GFLOPs). In CPU floating point performance, 360 was 40x Wii (Xenon: 115 GFLOPs vs Broadway: 2.85 GFLOPs). Now in pixel fillrate, the difference was only like just over 4x (4000 MPixels/sec vs 972 MPixels/sec).
PS3's Cell vs Wii's Broadway, in floating point performance, the difference is like 76x
(218 GFLOPs vs 2.85 GFLOPs).
Xbox 360 was more than 10x as powerful as Wii. In GPU floating point performance, 360 was like 18x Wii (Xenos: 240 GFLOPs vs Hollywood: 12.9 GFLOPs). In CPU floating point performance, 360 was 40x Wii (Xenon: 115 GFLOPs vs Broadway: 2.85 GFLOPs). Now in pixel fillrate, the difference was only like just over 4x (4000 MPixels/sec vs 972 MPixels/sec).
PS3's Cell vs Wii's Broadway, in floating point performance, the difference is like 76x
(218 GFLOPs vs 2.85 GFLOPs).
Risk Breaker said:Because we already have things like this (first gifs I've found on my HD)
On current (5 years old) hardware and we gamers usually want MORE and by MORE I mean LOTS more. Even if its a tech demo, look at the samaritan demo and you'll see what a lot of people actually want in new hardware, me included.
Also, things look a lot better in gif form than they do in a 40" screen.
i dont know whats your point with those gif's. The first two are prerendered and the last one its from a replay. These levels of graphics cant be archieved on current hardware in real time and the jump needed for the samaritan demo vs the graphics gained its not worth the money.
herzogzwei1989
Banned
Nothing really new and still vague, but here:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35414/Newell_Wii_Us_Power_Offers_Better_Fit_For_Valve.php
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35414/Newell_Wii_Us_Power_Offers_Better_Fit_For_Valve.php
herzogzwei1989
Banned
One thing I haven't seen discussed is the different clockspeeds of the GPU. Wouldn't there be a core clock (ROPs, TMUs) and a shader/stream processor clock, like all modern AMD GPUs? Of couse there's also a 3rd clockspeed, that of the graphics memory, assuming there will be a seperate pool of graphics memory,
PortTwo said:Gabe translation: we compiled Source for it and barely had to change anything, we love it.
Still, that's some of the best Wii U news I've heard yet.
B-but Valve hate Nintendo, remember!
wsippel said:
Valve, like Epic, has always been clear with their position toward big N : "your hardware is not powerful enough for our engine. When you bring the bits, we'll get the beer".
Bam! Here it is.
Risk Breaker
Member
gunther said:
The first two are modified replay cameras from a trailer with very high IQ, the third one is a standard replay on dynamic time of day with lower IQ. Special Stage Route 5 looks that good, it can be achieved as, well, I'm playing it right now. The fact that the gifs are from replays mean shit, that zelda gif is from a tech demo so I'm the one that doesn't see your point.
Regarding Nintendo's online setup: I have little doubt that they will offer a service with templates that smaller developers can use to personalize their titles' pages, while offering further functionality and access to larger developers who want it. [The web hosting approach to online gaming, if you will.] It will still function on Nintendo's service - ie. it's not going to be a Wild West where every game has a completely different online functionality - but it will offer 3rd parties the ability to update at whim without Nintendo interfering or needing to provide approval.
Why?
Because Nintendo wants to offer freedom to 3rd parties without the possibility of getting itself sued. The less involved it is in the upkeep and updating of the companies' game pages and content, the more they're able to avoid liability.
Why?
Because Nintendo wants to offer freedom to 3rd parties without the possibility of getting itself sued. The less involved it is in the upkeep and updating of the companies' game pages and content, the more they're able to avoid liability.
Shin Johnpv
Member
herzogzwei1989 said:
I think you're way over estimating what's going to be in the PS4/Xbox3. We have no hint of a release date or any info at all about a DirectX 12 or Shader Model 6.0. With all the rumors hinting at MS showing off the system at next E3 it doesn't really lend itself to something like that. I think people really need to keep their expectations of the PS4/Xbox3 way in check from where they're currently at. There's not going to be a custom Maxwell chip in the PS4, and the Xbox 3 is not going to be running a DX12 chip.
Shin Johnpv said:
Microsoft will be using customized Llano or Trinity parts, depending on the release date of the nextbox. Mid-range parts from the current-gen GPUs, in other words. Sony's the only mystery (unless you read at what they've been saying recently in regards to being profitable and "tempering" people's expectations on the jump).
Shin Johnpv
Member
agrajag said:
I could have sworn Sony's CEO has gone on record as saying they won't be spending the kind of money they did on the PS3 on the PS4. People really need to temper their expectations of what's going to be going into the PS4.
DaSorcerer7
Member
Vinci said:
James Armstrong, VP SCEE, (CEO SCE Spain Portugal)
http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/9316.html
Risk Breaker
Member
Or maybe it just means that the PS4 won't be as expensive to develop and build because of Blu-ray and Cell.
DaSorcerer7
Member
Lagaff said:
Better visuals still tells us nothing.
StickSoldier
Member
herzogzwei1989 said:
Hmm, can't really complain with this. If Valve will have games on a Nintendo console, I'll take whatever graphics it can produce.
Actually, Valves position was a bit different from Epics. Gabe mentioned numerous times, early in the Wii's life, that he whilst they didn't have any concrete plans, he would be interested in making a Wii game. Ultimately though, with Valve switching to multiplat strategy along with the rest of the industry, developing an exclusive just didn't make sense (and of course ports were out of the question).stilgar said:
Epic, on the other hand, did not show even an iota interest in the Wii, with there official stance being "licensee's can port over UE2.5 if they want but we don't give a shit".
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Looking at the Crysis 2 DX 11 patch thread, many people in that thread can't even tell the difference between the screens with the high-res texture pack and tessellation and the DX9 screens. When that starts happening on a place like GAF, and from a company like Crytek, you know that diminishing returns are just around the corner, even for high-end video cards. Most people can't even tell the difference between The Witcher 2 on PC and 360 based on the screens released.
Even if they are released in 2014, I wouldn't expect the PS4 or 360-2 to significantly outperform top of the line videocards from right now, and they probably won't be a generational leap above the Wii U unless you're talking about 16xAA, 120FPS, or multi-HD screen support.
Nintendo made the mistake of thinking that E3 hype actually matters. They made a concerted effort to make the Wii standout from traditional gaming machines, and got it into people's hands who could spread that message, as MS did with Kinect.
Even if they are released in 2014, I wouldn't expect the PS4 or 360-2 to significantly outperform top of the line videocards from right now, and they probably won't be a generational leap above the Wii U unless you're talking about 16xAA, 120FPS, or multi-HD screen support.
agrajag said:If that's the case, Nintendo REALLY dropped the ball with 3DS
Nintendo made the mistake of thinking that E3 hype actually matters. They made a concerted effort to make the Wii standout from traditional gaming machines, and got it into people's hands who could spread that message, as MS did with Kinect.
agrajag said:If that's the case, Nintendo REALLY dropped the ball with 3DS
That's still an unknown. Nintendo dropping the ball, I mean. I don't like the 3DS or the direction they went in, but I have a hard time saying they've done anything explicitly wrong with it... yet. We'll see by the first of next year.
Graphics Horse
Member
For whatever reason, I think the 3DS ended up using the hardware originally planned for the fabled handheld they cancelled 3 to 5 years ago, which would have probably been a single 2D screen GBA successor if the DS hadn't been such a monster hit.
BurntPork said:
But people are saying it's not being sold at a loss, so all of its components aren't that expensive so the price should've been expected. Besides, that's the same price PSP launched at, so how the hell launching at the same exact price as the previous system unexpected?
Sho_Nuff82
Member
BurntPork said:
Sony is selling slightly above cost.
Nintendo is willingly selling the 3DS at over 100% markup because of hubris.
The components being cheap was also unexpected. And prices have been going up sharply in the past few years. Just because you somehow knew that Sony would pull a complete 180 from what they did with the PS3 doesn't mean that everyone did.agrajag said:
They are not selling slightly above cost, and the 3DS does not have a 100% mark-up. Nintendo doesn't sell the 3DS for $250; retailers do.Sho_Nuff82 said:
I love how Kaz is suddenly a liar because somebody said something different a few days later. Clearly, there's something not being said there.
Krauser Kat
Member
Vita has the same problem as PSP. The games not really being portable in nature. You can help but think the game would be better played on your couch looking at your massive tv.
StealthGoblin
Banned
agrajag said:
Greedy, though I don't blame them. They are in it for profit (all they do is gaming) and they are good at it. The 3DS does not cost anything remotely close to its RRP, or even its heavily discounted retail pricing.
- Status