Support NeoGAF

[bgassassin]

my biggest fear really is that nintendo thinks HD graphics is all core gamers and developers want. That's it...

I think that's from just the impression from Reggie's talk. I think on the actual frontlines Nintendo is attempting to address the desires of devs while staying with their means.

Though, their view on that can be a bit skewed.

And that guy's comments is proof of that. The majority of non-gamers will barely become casual gamers let alone core gamers.

I think we should call it The U. Nintendo U would have been a good name actually. Saying wii U just isn't working for me.

I don think Miami Hurricanes fans would like that.

 

[Terrell]

I think the context of aggressive in this sense was pricing to be competitive, especially with better technology. Technology costs back in the day were one thing, but the environment to make better consoles and still be affordable is going away. I just don't see Nintendo pushing that unless they have a good amount of support for the console from the get go. I can see the launch price being an indicator of the launch window support, especially if it comes out at $299.

I think that The past 15 years of Nintendo's history prove that, for all intents and purposes, Nintendo makes a healthy enough profit on its own titles and has 15 years of data to see what the average Nintendo-published software attach ratio is. Using that sales ratio, they can estimate a totally safe hardware loss value and plan within it.
Also, as for the "safety net" concept discussed earlier, should their software not sell to the rate they want, there's also the added benefit of knowing that their consoles sell in high numbers based on their wider audience that a price drop isn't necessary within the first 2 years. So even if software sales perform below expectations, they can hedge bets on the cost of manufacturing lowering within the first 2 years.
If they plan it just right (and let it never be said that Nintendo isn't shrewd with numbers), one way or another, profitability is pretty much assured for them no matter what strategy they take, but that seems to me to be the way they'd plan it out if they took a loss on their hardware again.

 

[BurntPork]

Because it was never said. Ever...
Ugh, BurntPork. Just... stop...

I didn't realize he had a reputation for trolling or else I wouldn't have bothered responding.

Hey, I'm not a troll. I'm just a pessimistic Nintendo fanboy. If I'm proven wrong, you guys will probably get sick of me for being so excited and showing how huge of a fanboy I am.

I'll admit that I might have remembered the quote wrong, but I'm almost positive that I saw something similar.

... Looking into it, I was mistaken somewhere. I'm sure if it's that someone else said it or what, but I'm sorry. I swear that I'm not trolling. However, if you want me to stop posting, I will.

Edit: Yep, I'm a jackass. This is where I was mistaken: http://www.qj.net/wii-u/news/ubisoft-wii-u-more-powerful-than-ps3/x360-for-some-games.html

Still, what the hell does "some games" mean?

I think BurntPork has already made up his mind about what the Wii U will be, conceptually and performance wise. Like all things, only time will tell if he's right or wrong, eh?

I haven't made up my mind. It's just that I think that we would have heard at least one concrete sign that this is significantly more powerful than the current gen by now if it were.

 

[wsippel]

Still, what the hell does "some games" mean?

I guess the system is just balanced differently. I don't really expect the CPU to blow Cell out of the water when it comes to raw number crunching for example. Maybe it's even weaker in that area. But the system has other strengths, like more RAM and a more modern OpenCL compliant GPU. Especially the latter is something that probably won't be utilized in multiplatform games though, so the system can't really show off.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

Like acebandage says, content is king. I want nintendo to create a healthy platform for content to thrive. In order to do that, they must have an open and robust online system as well as enough power to accommodate the needs of third party developers.

I really do think that it's possible they'll accomplish both, but I fear that they'll become short sighted or unable to execute either properly. I think the use of modern shaders and moderate GPU should get them by and allow for most ports of acceptable quality.

It's presently unclear whether or not the wii was simply a master stroke of genius that allowed them to take advantage of an untapped market or if it was a complete fundamental shift in design philosophy. If it was the latter, then I wont be surprised at all if the wii U really is just a beefier 360. Luckily, most rumors point to something a bit more substantial.

what shift? Nintendo's always wanted to create something different, even the GC with its minidiscs but since it had tremendous horsepower noone really noticed that wasn't Nintendo's main goal. The Wii was definitely the result of both decisions, they needed something to kick Sony in the arse and retake the market thus they needed the casuals, and to do that they only applied the Nintendo difference once again

that's what's happening with the U. I don't really think Nintendo's interested enough in the online because all they want is propose something to make the casuals think once again "woo this is funneh" because THEY were those who made the Wii a success, that's their target, but at least they're giving devs enough power to make us seasoned players a bit excited

I mman, we shouldn't put so much faith in U's online system. I fear we'll be bgetting something that's going to disappoint, if we get our hopes up

 

[AceBandage]

EA seems to think Nintendo is going full force with online on the Wii U.
I dunno, I think a lot of people are going to be surprised with all the Wii U can do.

 

[Luckyman]

Microsoft entered the industry because they couldnt broker a deal to own Nintendo and had a very heavy desire to thwart Sonys takeover of the house.

At this point I think many investors question whats the point. It has been a very expensive undertaking that investors have not liked and it hasnt really thwarted Sony though SOny has done more damage to itself than competition.

MS invested heavily on Xbox and IS now making a ton of Money on Xbox, Kinect and Xbox Live atm. Xbox 360 will be sold for 5+ years more. Xbox Live will be integrated on Windows 8 and every other MS platform. What is your point?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

For a brand new home console , I have a hard time seeing it below 350$. Especially, how Nintendo likes to make money up front on its product.

$350 would be $100 more than they've ever charged for a home console, and $150 more than they've ever charged for a home console that had decent graphics for its time. They can make money.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

EA seems to think Nintendo is going full force with online on the Wii U.
I dunno, I think a lot of people are going to be surprised with all the Wii U can do.

I know I will if this happens, but just cannot see it

 

[BurntPork]

They'll get everything right, even making accounts and friend requests, and then they'll make a 9-digit friend code for each account and we'll all just :|

Spoiler

I'm kidding btw. I'm actually hopeful that they'll get this part right and even beat PSN. I just hope they extend it to the 3DS at some point.

 

[Dali]

I know I will if this happens, but just cannot see it

Me too. I went from pre-reveal hype that Nintendo may somehow release the second-coming of the SNES - a console designed for all, that every developer would flock to and would incorporate what the more "harcore" segment has come to expect from a console - to "oh Nintendo just being Nintendo again". At this point I feel like lightning will not strike twice and we will be looking at sub-GCN numbers. They haven't really instilled much faith in me since reveal, but it's still early.

 

[DECK'ARD]

EA seems to think Nintendo is going full force with online on the Wii U.
I dunno, I think a lot of people are going to be surprised with all the Wii U can do.

I think it's more that Nintendo will let EA go full-force with online on the Wii U.

And any other 3rd party that wants to do so.

 

[ombz]

my biggest fear really is that nintendo thinks HD graphics is all core gamers and developers want. That's it...

I don't like how people use HD as a term for power. Isn't a system's power more about polygons, shaders, etc. ?

 

[DECK'ARD]

I don't like how people use HD as a term for power. Isn't a system's power more about polygons, shaders, etc. ?

All talk about power in consoles is always rough, it's been like that from the days when it was talked about in terms of how many bits each was.

How things work under-the-hood and how effective they are always comes with loads of qualifications. The resolution you are driving though is a key bit in where that power will be going though, as you have to render more and need more memory.

 

[ombz]

All talk about power in consoles is always rough, it's been like that from the days when it was talked about in terms of how many bits each was.

How things work under-the-hood and how effective they are always comes with loads of qualifications. The resolution you are driving though is a key bit in where that power will be going though, as you have to render more and need more memory.

I guess I understand. It just seems like Nintendo thinks that the power doesn't matter as long as it outputs in HD.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Star Fox's online problem could have been got around with very basic facial-recognition software. It's already in there with Face Raiders.

At the very least it would have meant having to customise your penis and make it more friendly looking to get it online.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I guess I understand. It just seems like Nintendo thinks that the power doesn't matter as long as it outputs in HD.

To the lay-man, all that matters is Nintendo have an HD console coming out. This generation was defined by 2 HD consoles and one that wasn't. The more powerful ones are the ones that display in HD, that's how the public sees it.

Your average member of the public doesn't know what speed the PS3's CPU is running at, giving more specs would achieve nothing except give GAF more tangible stuff to argue about

 

[bgassassin]

I'm taking a stab at the main components of what is in the dev kit:

• AMD Phenom II x3 (maybe x4)
• 1GB DDR3 memory
• ATI Radeon HD 4870

I chose these parts because they seem like they could represent an early dev kit based on what we know so far. The CPU and GPU in their respective lines have higher wattage outputs which could generate the heating issues (although the latter is also me being hopeful). The CPU has 6MB of L3 Cache to give a slight representation of what they are getting from IBM. The reason I went with "only" 1GB of memory is because the off the shelf 4870 would have its own memory (which I believe was an unintentional mistake in the IGN test model). If say they were using a 4870 with 1GB of GDDR5, then the dev kit has a max 2GB of memory to access, and would be inline with one of the Ubisoft's guys comment about a large pool of memory. I'm still hoping the final version will have at least 1.5GB of GDDR5 memory. I'd like to believe the devs talked Nintendo into a higher amount than what was rumored. Although I wonder if the latency in GDDR5 is bearable enough to use it as unified memory. Anyone have a deeper explanation for GDDR5 latency and the effect on a CPU?

I think that The past 15 years of Nintendo's history prove that, for all intents and purposes, Nintendo makes a healthy enough profit on its own titles and has 15 years of data to see what the average Nintendo-published software attach ratio is. Using that sales ratio, they can estimate a totally safe hardware loss value and plan within it.
Also, as for the "safety net" concept discussed earlier, should their software not sell to the rate they want, there's also the added benefit of knowing that their consoles sell in high numbers based on their wider audience that a price drop isn't necessary within the first 2 years. So even if software sales perform below expectations, they can hedge bets on the cost of manufacturing lowering within the first 2 years.
If they plan it just right (and let it never be said that Nintendo isn't shrewd with numbers), one way or another, profitability is pretty much assured for them no matter what strategy they take, but that seems to me to be the way they'd plan it out if they took a loss on their hardware again.

I agree with these points, and would love to see it happen if it would also allow Nintendo to squeeze a little more power under the hood. The thing is those same points you use to justify that route are the same reasons why they more than likely won't go that route. Why go against the grain of what's been profitable for you all these years? The loss they took on the GC at launch was supposed to be extremely small, then they took another "bigger" loss during one of the price cuts after not selling well. I'd like to see them do it as a consumer, but their business practice says that we shouldn't get our hopes up for it.

Me too. I went from pre-reveal hype that Nintendo may somehow release the second-coming of the SNES - a console designed for all, that every developer would flock to and would incorporate what the more "harcore" segment has come to expect from a console - to "oh Nintendo just being Nintendo again". At this point I feel like lightning will not strike twice and we will be looking at sub-GCN numbers. They haven't really instilled much faith in me since reveal, but it's still early.

But that's not even logical. You're essentially saying that not only will no non-gamers/casual gamers that bought the Wii will buy Wii U, but some of those who bought a GC won't buy one either. The Wii U will sell more than the GC just from name recognition alone. I don't expect it to sell as much as the Wii right now, but it's not going to fall off like that.

 

[daakusedo]

Will we have other opportunities to know more about the console this year?

 

[AceBandage]

Will we have other opportunities to know more about the console this year?

At the very latest, in October at their fall conference.

 

[BurntPork]

I'm taking a stab at the main components of what is in the dev kit:

• AMD Phenom II x3 (maybe x4)
• 1GB DDR3 memory
• ATI Radeon HD 4870

I chose these parts because they seem like they could represent an early dev kit based on what we know so far. The CPU and GPU in their respective lines have higher wattage outputs which could generate the heating issues (although the latter is also me being hopeful). The CPU has 6MB of L3 Cache to give a slight representation of what they are getting from IBM. The reason I went with "only" 1GB of memory is because the off the shelf 4870 would have its own memory (which I believe was an unintentional mistake in the IGN test model). If say they were using a 4870 with 1GB of GDDR5, then the dev kit has a max 2GB of memory to access, and would be inline with one of the Ubisoft's guys comment about a large pool of memory. I'm still hoping the final version will have at least 1.5GB of GDDR5 memory. I'd like to believe the devs talked Nintendo into a higher amount than what was rumored. Although I wonder if the latency in GDDR5 is bearable enough to use it as unified memory. Anyone have a deeper explanation for GDDR5 latency and the effect on a CPU?

First of all, don't even jokingly say DDR3. Seriously.

Second, no reasonable amount of underclocking could get the RV770 close to the current-gen. I really think that the RV770 is 100% impossible. Do you really think that Nintendo would have even bothered if they could only get the RV770 to work at less than 200MHz? There really don't seem to be a realistic scenario where they'd bother using it.

Third, the dev kits are using a PPC. We know this. You can't substitute a x86 CPU for a PPC, especially not in a closed system. They're totally different.

 

[bgassassin]

First of all, don't even jokingly say DDR3. Seriously.

Second, no reasonable amount of underclocking could get the RV770 close to the current-gen. I really think that the RV770 is 100% impossible. Do you really think that Nintendo would have even bothered if they could only get the RV770 to work at less than 200MHz? There really don't seem to be a realistic scenario where they'd bother using it.

Third, the dev kits are using a PPC. We know this. You can't substitute a x86 CPU for a PPC, especially not in a closed system. They're totally different.

First I was going strictly with off the shelf parts, so any errors made was do to that line of thinking.

Why are you saying that about the memory? The early Xbox 360 dev kits were Apple G5s that used DDR memory and the console uses GDDR3. So what's wrong to you about an early dev kit using DDR3?

Secondly I'm confused at this point and what it has to do with not matching current gen consoles. I mean if you are talking about early graphic, then how do you expect short-window ports to look extremely better than their counterparts? That should say something about the console itself if they are getting PS360-level graphics with only a couple months of work on an underclocked system.

Third, I have no problem being wrong on that as I was again thinking strictly off the shelf and not about CPU compatibility.

 

[wsippel]

First of all, don't even jokingly say DDR3. Seriously.

Second, no reasonable amount of underclocking could get the RV770 close to the current-gen. I really think that the RV770 is 100% impossible. Do you really think that Nintendo would have even bothered if they could only get the RV770 to work at less than 200MHz? There really don't seem to be a realistic scenario where they'd bother using it.

Third, the dev kits are using a PPC. We know this. You can't substitute a x86 CPU for a PPC, especially not in a closed system. They're totally different.

From what I've heard, it is GDDR3. Not GDDR5, not XDR2. Maybe my source is wrong, I don't know. That's not necessarily a problem of course, depending on how wide the bus is, and there might even be benefits (lower latency). No idea. The GPU is supposedly has 640 SPs and is running at 500MHz, and the CPU is a triple core PPC running at 3.5GHz with a metric ton of l2 cache. Again, no idea if it's actually true - just something I was told in private. It's all second hand information, and the devkits are not even close to final, anyway.

 

[swerve]

Wii U is going to be an assault on my GAF time and other browsing. Currently that is what I do when I can't get access to the consoles (I rarely feel like playing portables at home).

Giving me back the accessibility that I used to have when my consoles were in my bedroom and I lived in my bedroom all the time is a cool move and I am only just starting to get the point of it. Now they just have to nail the start-up times (and allow installs!)

 

[BurntPork]

From what I've heard, it is GDDR3. Not GDDR5, not XDR2. Maybe my source is wrong, I don't know. That's not necessarily a problem of course, depending on how wide the bus is, and there might even be benefits (lower latency). No idea. The GPU is supposedly has 640 SPs and is running at 500MHz, and the CPU is a triple core PPC running at 3.5GHz with a metric ton of l2 cache. Again, no idea if it's actually true - just something I was told in private. It's all second hand information, and the devkits are not even close to final, anyway.

Not sure if trolling... Though all of that makes sense. Sadly, that would put it merely at twice as powerful as the current gen, especially with that huge memory bottleneck. I hope you're not right...

 

[beje]

Wii U is going to be an assault on my GAF time and other browsing. Currently that is what I do when I can't get access to the consoles (I rarely feel like playing portables at home).

Giving me back the accessibility that I used to have when my consoles were in my bedroom and I lived in my bedroom all the time is a cool move and I am only just starting to get the point of it. Now they just have to nail the start-up times (and allow installs!)

If the console is actually using a Blue-laser drive at a decent and up-to-date speed (this means, something around 8x to 12x), you won't need installs (and therefor, neither a huge-ass hard drive as the rumored 8GB in-board SSD + 8GB SD card would be enough) because access time would be much better than the current PS3 drive that works at 2x.

 

[bgassassin]

One thing he's not doing BP is trolling. And again it's still an early dev kit. How can you judge the power on an early, underclocked dev kit?

From what I've heard, it is GDDR3. Not GDDR5, not XDR2. Maybe my source is wrong, I don't know. That's not necessarily a problem of course, depending on how wide the bus is, and there might even be benefits (lower latency). No idea. The GPU is supposedly has 640 SPs and is running at 500MHz, and the CPU is a triple core PPC running at 3.5GHz with a metric ton of l2 cache. Again, no idea if it's actually true - just something I was told in private. It's all second hand information and the devkits are not even close to final, anyway.

Even if it is second-hand, non-confirmed information, I'd still rather hear something like this as opposed to just trying to guess what it is on my own. Did they say how much memory it's supposed to currently have? And that also sound like either a 4730 or a 4830. The 4730 has a higher TDP, but the 4830's bus type shows GDDR3. It will be interesting to see the next step. In fact looking at the core clock, the 4830 runs at 575MHz.

 

[guek]

From what I've heard, it is GDDR3. Not GDDR5, not XDR2. Maybe my source is wrong, I don't know. That's not necessarily a problem of course, depending on how wide the bus is, and there might even be benefits (lower latency). No idea. The GPU is supposedly has 640 SPs and is running at 500MHz, and the CPU is a triple core PPC running at 3.5GHz with a metric ton of l2 cache. Again, no idea if it's actually true - just something I was told in private. It's all second hand information, and the devkits are not even close to final, anyway.

Spill it...what else do you know?

 

[Dali]

I'm taking a stab at the main components of what is in the dev kit:

• AMD Phenom II x3 (maybe x4)
• 1GB DDR3 memory
• ATI Radeon HD 4870

I chose these parts because they seem like they could represent an early dev kit based on what we know so far. The CPU and GPU in their respective lines have higher wattage outputs which could generate the heating issues (although the latter is also me being hopeful). The CPU has 6MB of L3 Cache to give a slight representation of what they are getting from IBM. The reason I went with "only" 1GB of memory is because the off the shelf 4870 would have its own memory (which I believe was an unintentional mistake in the IGN test model). If say they were using a 4870 with 1GB of GDDR5, then the dev kit has a max 2GB of memory to access, and would be inline with one of the Ubisoft's guys comment about a large pool of memory. I'm still hoping the final version will have at least 1.5GB of GDDR5 memory. I'd like to believe the devs talked Nintendo into a higher amount than what was rumored. Although I wonder if the latency in GDDR5 is bearable enough to use it as unified memory. Anyone have a deeper explanation for GDDR5 latency and the effect on a CPU?



I agree with these points, and would love to see it happen if it would also allow Nintendo to squeeze a little more power under the hood. The thing is those same points you use to justify that route are the same reasons why they more than likely won't go that route. Why go against the grain of what's been profitable for you all these years? The loss they took on the GC at launch was supposed to be extremely small, then they took another "bigger" loss during one of the price cuts after not selling well. I'd like to see them do it as a consumer, but their business practice says that we shouldn't get our hopes up for it.



But that's not even logical. You're essentially saying that not only will no non-gamers/casual gamers that bought the Wii will buy Wii U, but some of those who bought a GC won't buy one either. The Wii U will sell more than the GC just from name recognition alone. I don't expect it to sell as much as the Wii right now, but it's not going to fall off like that.

You're right. The game industry has grown too much for it to do sub-gcn numbers. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that sales will be lost to these new, more powerful handhelds, lack of repeat casuals simply not interested in this new gimmick, and perhaps anticipation creaed by ps4/720 reveals. I expect it to fall off in a major way.

 

[AceBandage]

You're right. The game industry has grown too much for it to do sub-gcn numbers. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that sales will be lost to these new, more powerful handhelds, lack of repeat casuals simply not interested in this new gimmick, and perhaps anticipation creaed by ps4/720 reveals. I expect it to fall off in a major way.

I think everyone does. Even Nintendo.
There's no way that they can make a system that is sold out for nearly two years straight again.
It's just not possible.
The Wii Sports phenomenon was pure brilliance, but it's so hard to replicate that kind of success.

 

[wsippel]

Not sure if trolling... Though all of that makes sense. Sadly, that would put it merely at twice as powerful as the current gen, especially with that huge memory bottleneck. I hope you're not right...

I think my Nintendo fanboyism isn't exactly a secret, so rest assured, I'm not trolling.

And I don't even think GDDR3 would be a huge bottleneck if the chips have enough cache. Supposedly, in addition to the really large l2 cache on the CPU, the GPU also has tons of cache. All in all, GDDR3 might not be a bottleneck, it might simply be efficient. But like I said, it might be completely wrong. It kinda matches the rumors, but I honestly don't know.

 

[bgassassin]

^ That also lines up with both Sega and I believe Ubisoft saying it's "different" when asked about comparing power if it has lots of eDRAM. The more I hear, the more it sounds like they are replicating what they did with the GC from a design concept standpoint.

You're right. The game industry has grown too much for it to do sub-gcn numbers. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that sales will be lost to these new, more powerful handhelds, lack of repeat casuals simply not interested in this new gimmick, and perhaps anticipation creaed by ps4/720 reveals. I expect it to fall off in a major way.

Personally I currently believe all three next-gen consoles will not sell as much as their predecessors. I'm expecting the market to shrink from wherever the numbers end up for this generation.

 

[TheNatural]

I don't know what to say about the Wii U and the current state of Nintendo. I grew up with them and bought more games from them than anyone else, even though I haven't owned a Wii or anything this generation. I like to see what they do from a business aspect, they seem really discombobulated though.

First off, I don't know whats going on with their philosophy anymore, but watching a little of the 2001 E3 before this one, its funny how much what they say they stand for has changed. In 2001 they were talking about how price is the most important thing and value, now its like "well here's a new system, and a huge chunk of the cost goes to this controller you may or may not use." Its nice to see them continue to try new things in an era when nothing seems new, but in the end whether its a camera, wand, remote, or touchscreen - they're all just alternative ways to control a game. They may be better for some games, they may be worse, so why force EVERYONE to use it?

It seems really un-Nintendo like this past generation to force people to use motion controls in a lot of cases, when it's just as easy to add an additional standard control scheme. What gets me is how different things are from back when they came out with the N64 analog stick for Mario 64. Miyamoto always said that he thought of the concept of Mario 64 and then the controller to fit that and it was a natural fit. Now its like, there's no clear concept of what games can actually use this controller in a revolutionary way, they're just like "ok we made this now think of something to do with it." Really didn't work well with the Wii. I think Nintendo needs to get back to thinking about everyone and not force people to use a high priced controller, and offer a "standard" controller SKU at a lower price.

Also its odd to me just how unprepared Nintendo was with the Wii U unveiling, games, and apparently their final hardware specs and development kits are still ongoing. I wonder sometimes, what the fuck is going on at Nintendo? It's not like they've been pouring out release after release lately - I know they have some 3DS games they've been working on, but comeon. Since Mario Galaxy 2 was released last year (which Miyamoto himself even said at E3 2009 was basically done even then), they've released practically nothing. Other M and DKC weren't made by them, Kirby was literally the only major game release directly from Nintendo I can think of since then and there's only one major Wii game they've worked on upcoming. Really, what the hell? What are they wasting their time on? They look like a student who's had 4 months to get a major project done and start it two nights before. Hopefully they get it together and learn a lesson from the way 3DS is going that price is a major factor and offering players choices and there's no one right way to play a game.

 

[guek]

Well, if wsippel's source is at all credible, the GPU could be either a 4730, 4770, 4830, or a 4860. The 4830 has a core clock of 575 MHz...

Kinda of sounds like it's just the dev kit.

 

[BurntPork]

I think my Nintendo fanboyism isn't exactly a secret, so rest assured, I'm not trolling.

And I don't even think GDDR3 would be a huge bottleneck if the chips have enough cache. Supposedly, in addition to the really large l2 cache on the CPU, the GPU also has tons of cache. All in all, GDDR3 might not be a bottleneck, it might simply be efficient. But like I said, it might be completely wrong. It kinda matches the rumors, but I honestly don't know.

Hm. Still, I doubt that the final console will use such slow memory. That seems very un-Nintendo. My guess is that some of the memory is something faster.

Those specs make a crazy amount of sense if we assume that the the Zelda demo shown was either poorly optimized or had more stuff going on than we thought. I guess only time will tell, but those specs really sound believable.

 

[wsippel]

^ That also lines up with both Sega and I believe Ubisoft saying it's "different" when asked about comparing power if it has lots of eDRAM. The more I hear, the more it sounds like they are replicating what they did with the GC from a design concept standpoint.

Yeah, the system seems to be designed for efficiency, not raw performance. On paper, it's probably no more than two to three times as powerful as current generation systems.

 

[beje]

Personally I currently believe all three next-gen consoles will not sell as much as their predecessors. I'm expecting the market to shrink from wherever the numbers end up for this generation.

I think this too. There was a huge player shift from PC to consoles this generation, and it's very likely that all those people wil go back to PC gaming if all next gen consoles don't hold up to the PC at their launch, which has a 95% probability of happening unless Sony and MS go the crazy route again with huge, loud, extremely power hungry and highly prone to failure money-sinking machines.

This generation has been a complete anomaly in console cycles with Sony and MS wanting to minimize the effect of diminishing returns to be able to play once again the OMG GRAPHICS card, and it's to be expected that next generation each console + PC will go their own different way again without interferences (like hindering PC development with bad limitations and the need to do triple SKU) as before save it from the occasional multiplat title and yearly sports games.

 

[guek]

2-3 times more powerful than the current gen would be good enough for me, though those specs sound like it could potentially be slightly more powerful than that.

 

[Instro]

I'd have to assume that at least the DDR3 memory is something they are only using for dev kits. Seems to odd for Nintendo to stick with that kind of RAM when there is higher performance and more efficient RAM available.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Yeah, the system seems to be designed for efficiency, not raw performance. On paper, it's probably no more than two to three times as powerful as current generation systems.

Not un-common for a Nintendo system. On Paper its probably going to look less powerful than it actual is. Like the GC.

 

[SaintMadeOfPlaster]

I'd have to assume that at least the DDR3 memory is something they are only using for dev kits. Seems to odd for Nintendo to stick with that kind of RAM when there is higher performance and more efficient RAM available.

I'm no techie, but we all know how Nintendo likes to cut costs. Would the difference in production costs be minimal? If not, then we shouldn't be surprised.

 

[AceBandage]

I'm no techie, but we all know how Nintendo likes to cut costs. Would the difference in production costs be minimal? If not, then we shouldn't be surprised.

While Nintendo DOES like to cut costs, there's some odd things they like to splurge on.
RAM is one of them.
The Wii, GC and 3DS all had more RAM than was really needed and all running at fairly high BUS rates.

 

[BurntPork]

I'd have to assume that at least the DDR3 memory is something they are only using for dev kits. Seems to odd for Nintendo to stick with that kind of RAM when there is higher performance and more efficient RAM available.

Yeah. Nintendo is all about efficiency. With faster RAM and a boost in clocks, we should be looking at 3.5-4x the current gen. That's respectable, but Nintendo would really need to pray that either MS or Sony holds back a bit. Looking at the fact that MS is still billions away from turning a profit on jumping into gaming, I think they will take a step back and aim for more profitability, but will throw in a few planned DX12 features and flaunt those over Nintendo.

 

[wsippel]

While Nintendo DOES like to cut costs, there's some odd things they like to splurge on.
RAM is one of them.
The Wii, GC and 3DS all had more RAM than was really needed and all running at fairly high BUS rates.

Yes, but Nintendo also likes embedded RAM. They'd probably prefer a mix of insanely fast embedded RAM plus moderately fast main RAM to no embedded RAM and fast main RAM.

 

[guek]

Like I said, this sounds like the dev kit

 

[dwu8991]

Wii U is going to be an assault on my GAF time and other browsing. Currently that is what I do when I can't get access to the consoles (I rarely feel like playing portables at home).

Giving me back the accessibility that I used to have when my consoles were in my bedroom and I lived in my bedroom all the time is a cool move and I am only just starting to get the point of it. Now they just have to nail the start-up times (and allow installs!)

Its going to be so good just to pick up and play.
If there's one thing I hate about PS3 is waiting for x firmware to update.

 

[bgassassin]

Hm. Still, I doubt that the final console will use such slow memory. That seems very un-Nintendo. My guess is that some of the memory is something faster.

Those specs make a crazy amount of sense if we assume that the the Zelda demo shown was either poorly optimized or had more stuff going on than we thought. I guess only time will tell, but those specs really sound believable.

I still believe that while beautiful, the Zelda demo was limited due to being created from an engine designed originally for the Gamecube since it's Twilight Princess-based. They were able to make it prettier due to the better hardware, but the engine wasn't designed to take proper advantage of this level of hardware.

I think this too. There was a huge player shift from PC to consoles this generation, and it's very likely that all those people wil go back to PC gaming if all next gen consoles don't hold up to the PC at their launch, which has a 95% probability of happening unless Sony and MS go the crazy route again with huge, loud, extremely power hungry and highly prone to failure money-sinking machines.

This generation has been a complete anomaly in console cycles with Sony and MS wanting to minimize the effect of diminishing returns to be able to play once again the OMG GRAPHICS card, and it's to be expected that next generation each console + PC will go their own different way again without interferences (like hindering PC development with bad limitations and the need to do triple SKU) as before save it from the occasional multiplat title and yearly sports games.

I agree with everything except for consoles and PC going their own separate ways if I understand you correctly. I think they've become symbiotic now to the point where the potential positive(s) (at least to devs) outweigh the potential negatives you mention. Consoles use the PC to push their usage of hardware, while PC is reliant on the extra sales that come from console versions of the games. Devs can put more money into making the games prettier for PC, but with the current power of consoles devs can scale the game down to maximize their profits. Which is needed since despite that we still saw company's close their doors due to not earning enough.

 

[beje]

I agree with everything except for consoles and PC going their own separate ways if I understand you correctly. I think they've become symbiotic now to the point where the potential positive(s) (at least to devs) outweigh the potential negatives you mention. Consoles use the PC to push their usage of hardware, while PC is reliant on the extra sales that come from console versions of the games. Devs can put more money into making the games prettier for PC, but with the current power of consoles devs can scale the game down to maximize their profits. Which is needed since despite that we still saw company's close their doors due to not earning enough.

Well, I think this generation the negatives are outweighting the positives for "classic" PC developers. Why? Beacuse before this gen happened, they had all their audience in just one platform. One SKU with all that implied (support, beta testing, licensing...) and during this gen, a big part of their audience migrated to the new oh so powerful consoles, leaving them in a delicate position where they had suddenly to spread their work across two or three platforms with the budget rise it means and the problems they cause, in this case (and IMHO) hindering PC development and dumbing down pretty much everything to a controller. With a next-gen scenario similar to what we had before 2005, things should go back to normal, or at least to something more sane.

 

[BlackNMild2k1]

Like I said, this sounds like the dev kit

what else would it sound like if the system hasn't been finalized yet?

 

[guek]

what else would it sound like if the system hasn't been finalized yet?

Mostly it's in response to the DDR3 confusion. wsippel hasn't really elaborated on his source either, so for all we know's he heard that those are the proposed specs given by nintendo.