Wii U Speculation Thread The Third: Casting Dreams in The Castle of Miyamoto

It's just that now we're going to see a new thread for each quote that says if the Wii U is more powerful than the PS3/360 or not.

A war is coming.
Strap on your seatbelt son. It's gonna be a bumpy ride for the next 74 days

Edit: I suppose that NDA might refer to AC III?
 
This is torturous. I don't ever remember being so tormented by the lack of info of any single product ever, not even past Nintendo products.

It hurts. Hope March 26th brings something.
 
Strap on your seatbelt son. It's gonna be a bumpy ride for the next 74 days

Seriously though, people are fucking crazy. Bumping threads left and right and centre! I can't wait for E3, and genuinely, it's for the shitstorms. I'm going to love this thing whatever it turns out to be. :lol
 
I think conclusions are being jumped to and other considerations should be made. Tech, price, and marketshare is a careful balancing act.

It's an odd time for the industry. Do people want a new console just for new graphics? I just don't see the average person running out to spend 399.99 on a new Xbox because it's more powerful (and in a less noticeable fashion than any time in gaming history). COD will be on PS3/360 for another three years.

Maybe keeping the WiiU tech under a certain bar and selling it for 279.99 is the hot ticket. It's a tough cookie. The jump from PS2/Xbox to PS3/360 was significant and impactul o average consumers. The jump won't be as significant next time - and if it IS, well god help the developers/publishers who will go out of business due to insane development costs. If WiiU launches at 349.99 it's dead in the water.

It's a tricky balancing act. PSVita, for example, is a great piece of tech. It also means it's pricey and development costs are highest the portable market has ever seen. We all see how that's going. I don't see Sony bleeding at the hip again with PS4 in order to have the tech advantage.

In my opinion, the next generation is about services, apps, affordability, and new experiences (and do we need new tech for that?). Nintendo will focus on the Tablet experience, Microsoft will focus on Kinect experience and being a media hub. Sony, god help 'em if they can't integrate their million devices. Next generation is fighting off Apple.
 
First I forgot to respond to a post that mentioned this, but someone said it was an AMD engineer that made the claim, but the person where the info supposedly came from is a marketer.

Second and following up on that, Nintendo apparently never gave an actual target to devs. Just a codename from what I know.

Devs essentially found out on their own what gpu-equivalent was in the kit, and consensus seems to point to something specifically in the RV770 group of the R700 line.

This leaves a couple things IMO on this. Either the final will achieve this "beyond 1 TFLOP" metric and be on a smaller process to keep it cooler, or they may have realized what they wanted wasn't as obtainable as they may have thought and since they never locked themselves into anything "officially" with devs, the comment from the AMD marketer becomes moot.

I meant as a target they were shooting for themselves. And if this RV770 is correct, it still would be so much more powerful than Xenos, no? Even if it were merely a 4830? How much would they need to underclock it (it is standard clocked at 575 MHz) in order for non-tech-dev-guys like Arkam and the guy from Vigil to not see the bump in performance? And why the hell would they go for THAT chip in the devkit if it needed be underclocked and not just go for a chip that delivered the actual target specs?

Edit: Would Nintendo really go down from a HD4830? It does 3x the flops of the Xenos, runs below 600 MHz, is older/cheaper hardware that can be shrunk, 640 stream processors...
 
I just can't wait until E3 when we finally see some games built from the ground up for the Wii U. I'm so tired of people drawing conclusions over ports from last gen consoles. Why in the world would a 360 to Wii U port utilize features specific to the Wii U? It wouldn't.

EIDT: I know someone will take that sentence the wrong way, so I'm deleting it.
 
So, despite you both agreeing it'll have more RAM. A better processor. A more modern GPU. You insist that it's merely on par, and in some ways weaker, than the 360?
See.
That doesn't add up, no matter what math you use.

I'm sorry, but unless you're actually going to explain your situation better, it's just horribly hard to take anything you say as anything other than your own misinformation.

I'm beginning to think that we're looking at this all wrong. What if for the purposes and targets of the game in development that Arkham's dev team is on, the Wii U has it's own set of kinks "holding it back"? It might not be an issue with the system being straight up not powerful as it could be the developers having X in mind but not being able to achieve as much at current.

This little debacle has been a good shot in the arm for speculation so I'm going to run with it.
 
If we place the wii u near the current gen sony and microsoft consoles and still say it can get new gen games, is there not a possibility that these games come to 360 an ps3 too?
Frankly, today was a bit crazy that it made me think about this.
 
Here's a question for you, would actually like everyone in this thread to chime in if they feel like it:

Bearing in mind that Nintendo's entire existence is video games and they'd be insane to do what MS and Sony did with the last generation (600 dollar consoles with a monster operating loss)

What do YOU think they should be aiming for, cost and performance wise?

Personally the best case scenario I foresee is a .5X generation leapfrog at a $350 price point, and a slight loss(say 40-50 dollars at most.)

Personally I felt a good minimum GPU for all next gen consoles would be something akin to a Barts Pro (960 ALUs). So Wii U will most like miss this, though something like that at 600Mhz I believe could have been a good way for them to affordably reach a nice level of power without making a hot GPU.

Seriously, bg ideamanize himself :D

And i understand him

If he wrote the same sentence without emphasizing on some parts, it would be overlooked by 99% of the readers :p

XD

It's true since I've said things in the past the went overlooked.

Unless he edited and I missed it, how was that post offensive in any way? Because he said "I told y'all"? that's lacking tact?

You're missing out on the whole context of the situation to make that comment. Pulling an "I told you so" after not responding to other peoples' questions for awhile is not the thing to do.
 
Ok bear in mind I have NO KNOWLEDGE of their pricing plan. Most of the people I work with think they are going to bring it in at $249.99 - $299.99. which is why they are not going super aggressive with the hardware. But again that is just our assumption.

The question is, what do you think is a reasonable cost/performance ratio if the company in question actually intends to be successful and make money?
 
GAF at its finest if you ask me.

Seriously, you're not GAFfing right if you don't look at E3 as a giant social experiment as opposed to a time where you "support your team colors." I'm getting my games one way or another, but the comedy you're privileged to see/be a part of during E3 time is magical and only limited to how long you lay low and read everyone else going wild.
 
Personally I felt a good minimum GPU for all next gen consoles would be something akin to a Barts Pro (960 ALUs). So Wii U will most like miss this, though something like that at 600Mhz I believe could have been a good way for them to affordably reach a nice level of power without making a hot GPU.

Personally I would LOVE to see something like a 7850 in there. Would be nipping at the heels of a "full generation" leap.

Thing is, I don't think it's actually reasonable to hit that level of power, be at a mass market price and turn a profit.

Something like a 4850/4870 (but more modern) is.
 
Personally I would LOVE to see something like a 7850 in there. Would be nipping at the heels of a "full generation" leap.

Thing is, I don't think it's actually reasonable to hit that level of power, be at a mass market price and turn a profit.

Something like a 4850/4870 (but more modern) is.

...

A 7850 would Father-Son Kamehameha most technology one could get into a modest "generational leap" by quite a lot.

The latter though can be done if Nintendo (hopefully) designed their console's custom chip in a vein similar to the HD 5770/6770, maybe even slightly better if their targets line up with HD 7750/7770 specs.
 
Man ... this thread moves so fast o_O

If there's anything I have gathered from all this latest craziness is that I should just wait to see what Retro can do (hopefully seen at e3) with the HW or what other Nintendo teams can crank out and simply compare that to 3rd party stuff if I want to know how good the thing is..
 
Man ... this thread moves so fast o_O

If there's anything I have gathered from all this latest craziness is that I should just wait to see what Retro can do (hopefully seen at e3) with the HW or what other Nintendo teams can crank out and simply compare that to 3rd party stuff if I want to know how good the thing is..

Basically what i said 1 or 2 pages back.
 
Man ... this thread moves so fast o_O

If there's anything I have gathered from all this latest craziness is that I should just wait to see what Retro can do (hopefully seen at e3) with the HW or what other Nintendo teams can crank out and simply compare that to 3rd party stuff if I want to know how good the thing is..

I cannot wait to see what EAD Tokyo and Retro have to offer Wii U in terms of game-design and all-out visuals. E3 is gonna be a fucking blast.
 
So, despite you both agreeing it'll have more RAM. A better processor. A more modern GPU. You insist that it's merely on par, and in some ways weaker, than the 360?
See.
That doesn't add up, no matter what math you use.

I'm sorry, but unless you're actually going to explain your situation better, it's just horribly hard to take anything you say as anything other than your own misinformation.
What I've concluded is that Arkam is writing from his perspective. He doesn't know the spec's, but he's inferring the system's power are based on the work he's doing. For us this means absolutely nothing, because we don't know what he's working on. His company could really be trying to push the system or they could be making a quick and dirty port... it completely changes the context of his words. We also don't know if he understands why he's downgrading the assets he's working on. Is it because the system is really weaker, or are priorities different, or is it because the improved technology allow them to get more from less.

If you strip out the dickish attitude, what he's saying isn't all that different from Ideaman. The main difference being the notion that his port is the be-all end-all of the system.
 
...

A 7850 would Father-Son Kamehameha most technology one could get into a modest "generational leap" by quite a lot.

The latter though can be done if Nintendo (hopefully) designed their console's custom chip in a vein similar to the HD 5770/6770, maybe even slightly better if their targets line up with HD 7750/7770 specs.

Exactly the point I'm making. Would I love to see a giant leap like that? You bet your ass I would.

Do I think it's reasonable to expect that at a mass market price from a company that NEEDS to turn a profit on its "game division?"

Nope.
 
E3 2012 will be the stuff of legends.

The meltdowns are already starting, but good god I can't wait to see how GAF will implode. This sounds basic, but people really need to CALM THE HELL DOWN. Realize that for the first time in history, Nintendo will be getting HD graphics, and quite possibly an established online infrastructure. The hardware bitching for the love of god needs to stop. Do some of you guys know how you sound? Whining about the innards of a console? Resorting to Ad Hominem over a piece of plastic? It's stressing a ton of people out, me included. I came to GAF from Joystiq and N4G (otherwise known as hell), looking for some fun and meaningful discussion about gaming, not console wars... I left those sites to get away from that shit.

I blame certain software developers who build bleeding edge engines (you know who I'm talking about) for brainwashing the gaming community into thinking that the measure of a system's worth is solely based on its hardware. It's really sad to see less and less people actually talk about why they like consoles, games, and just fun in general without the influence of hardware. We've seen this mentally constantly being proven wrong in all generations, yet its still prevalent in people's mindsets. NEVER has the most powerful console "won". It's the system that has the best games and appeals to the most people. The N64 did that, the PS2 did that, the DS did that etc.

This generation has truly spoiled many of us gamers, man. Now it seems as though content and substance doesn't matter as much to many people. It's "can it run this engine?" or "can it run this game with X amount of fps, or X amount of AA" and shit like that. Tis a shame, but hopefully gaming can go back to just... I don't know...fun?

Next gen will be won with innovation, not hardware.
/rant
 
Seriously, you're not GAFfing right if you don't look at E3 as a giant social experiment as opposed to a time where you "support your team colors." I'm getting my games one way or another, but the comedy you're privileged to see/be a part of during E3 time is magical and only limited to how long you lay low and read everyone else going wild.
I actually had tears in my eyes from laughing about the whole "FF XIII on Xbox 360" thing. It was glorious.

Btw, the estimate prices from Arkam would me make me a very very happy camper.
 
In my opinion, the next generation is about services, apps, affordability, and new experiences (and do we need new tech for that?). Nintendo will focus on the Tablet experience, Microsoft will focus on Kinect experience and being a media hub. Sony, god help 'em if they can't integrate their million devices. Next generation is fighting off Apple.

this is my take on it too. each hardware manufacturer had to learn a lesson in accessibility this generation for next generation.

for sony, it's about making your console easy to develop for and affordable for consumers. the vita is a good example of this, and while people might scoff at the $250-$300 pricepoint, that's just so they didn't bleed themselves dry in the event of a disastrous launch. i also believe that if sony is serious about the handheld market, then they will push one of the vita's biggest features into next gen, which is being able to take your games with you on the go. this means there can't be a gaping abyss of power/features between ps4 and vita games.

microsoft learned that nintendo and apple were onto something with appealing to people who don't normally like video games. the xbox and the xbox 360 very heavily went for the hardcore fanbase. microsoft was very aggressive in trying to buy companies outright like bungie, sega, nintendo, and rare in order to just have a huge first-party presence ready to go. with the success of the kinect, wii, ds, and apple products, i think they see they don't exclusively need the fanbase that cares about super high end graphics. after losing so much money with the xbox, and the gaming division still trying to dig itself out of that hole, going for a more affordable next-gen system with mass appeal from the start (kinect being in every console and using it to browse through movies with the wave of your hand like in the future) has to be something they're at least considering. the modern warfare fans and halo people will follow them even if the next console is a minimal step up over the current generation visually, especially since so much is tied to xbox live.

nintendo's big lesson is pretty obvious in that they need to be on the same playing field as the others. i think they were sorta forced into a corner with the wii, but with the wii u they probably see apple as more the threat. the wii u will obviously be the weakest of the three consoles going forward, but not as dramatically so as the spread between the wii and the ps3.
 
I meant as a target they were shooting for themselves. And if this RV770 is correct, it still would be so much more powerful than Xenos, no? Even if it were merely a 4830? How much would they need to underclock it (it is standard clocked at 575 MHz) in order for non-tech-dev-guys like Arkam and the guy from Vigil to not see the bump in performance? And why the hell would they go for THAT chip in the devkit if it needed be underclocked and not just go for a chip that delivered the actual target specs?

The more I've learned on my own, the more I wondered/felt that Nintendo didn't really know themselves what they and just wanted to set a point that was just enough to get PS360 ports and just enough to run the controller as well. There was a more recent rumor article that said as much. How true that is will depend on what the final looks like.

As for the UC'ing, this will give you some perspective on why it's easy to say Wii U at least early on was on par with Xbox 360. Digital Foundry guessed based on the demos that the GPU was a 4670 (RV730XT, 320 ALUs/750Mhz). I did this on B3D awhile back and will do it here now. We'll look at the GFLOPs/Pixel Fillrate (GP/s)/Texture fillrate (GT/s).

4670 (750Mhz) - 480/6/24

4830 (575Mhz) - 736/9.2/18.4

4830 (500Mhz) - 640/8/16

4830 (450Mhz) - 576/7.2/14.4

4830 (400Mhz) - 512/6.4/12.8

This IMO puts things into perspective as to why some have said what they did. This should help show how being slightly more powerful than PS360 is very possible and that kind of gap wouldn't justify extra effort IMO. If the final did look like one of these underclocked versions, then Nintendo would lose any and all right to claim to want a "certain group" of gamers from a business perspective.
 
I asked this in another thread, so I guess I'll ask this here.

Some developers are making games that require a harddrive, and I wonder if that will have an impact on what games Wii U gets. I know you can plug in a USB external harddrive, but will not having a harddrive come with the console cost the Wii U some games?

I remember Blizzard being asked about whether their games would be on consoles, and they said they would only consider consoles that have harddrives packed with them. They hated that some 360's didn't come bundle with harddrives.
 
Personally I would LOVE to see something like a 7850 in there. Would be nipping at the heels of a "full generation" leap.

Thing is, I don't think it's actually reasonable to hit that level of power, be at a mass market price and turn a profit.

Something like a 4850/4870 (but more modern) is.

Personally the last sentence I think is what Nintendo may have done when development started. Picked one of the upper end GPUs of the time and began designing something based on that for future use.

I definitely wouldn't mind seeing a 7850-equivalent, but I think like you mentioned it wouldn't work due to the cost as the controller will eat into that. But something like I proposed would still be well within range of a 7850.
 
To be honest, I would be disappointed if all they managed to do was to create a 360. Hell, they could have used some off the shelf parts to do just that without the need for custom anything. To put all that work into simply being "on par" would be funny, and I can imagine there would be a crapton of other disappointed folks as well. I guess we'll see. I'll be happy with whatever, but that doesn't mean I won't be a miffed by their decision.
 
Here's a question for you, would actually like everyone in this thread to chime in if they feel like it:

Bearing in mind that Nintendo's entire existence is video games and they'd be insane to do what MS and Sony did with the last generation (600 dollar consoles with a monster operating loss)

What do YOU think they should be aiming for, cost and performance wise?

Personally the best case scenario I foresee is a .5X generation leapfrog at a $350 price point, and a slight loss(say 40-50 dollars at most.)

If hardware makers went with what gaffers seem to be expecting, they would end up bankrupting the entire industry and/or turning studios into slave labor camps. The games themselves wouldn't be any better for it either, just prettier. Publishers, who are already extremely risk-averse as it is, would avoid unique, genre-defying games like the plague.

Knowing that Nintendo is the only purely gaming company left making consoles, it seems quite obvious that they should only do what is good for the industry as a whole. Forcing studios to raise the bar much higher than it already is would be akin to assisted suicide, as revenues would not be able to match budgets for the vast majority of projects. They would have to raise game prices to NeoGeo levels, and we all know how well that went.

This obsession with graphics is like the movie industry's obsession with CGI effects. The movies aren't any better because of CGI, just more expensive and prettier. In fact, since studios are plunking down so much cash for these blockbusters, they need to make sure the scripts are as dumbed-down as possible to reach the largest audience so they can at least break even. With few exceptions (ie, previously established franchises and Pixar), the average IQ required to appreciate a particular blockbuster tends to go down with to the budget.

The same thing is happening with games - it's more of the same big titles year after year, and they've traded challenge for graphics. The industry is stagnating because of this; just a cursory glance of NPD figures for the past 3 years makes it evident. Even as the economy has gotten better, game sales are declining. People are moving on to other forms of entertainment/time-wasting.

So as far as what Nintendo should do, they should release a console that can play 3rd party games and has a built-in way to make them all feel fresh again. That's what they did. Beyond that, I really don't give a rat's ass. I'm a 3D artist and heaps of polygons and textures do nothing for me. Games do. When it comes down to it, and I'm in the "zone" playing a game, I'm not counting pixels or examining textures. I'm playing the game. Minecraft is popular for a reason.
 
I asked this in another thread, so I guess I'll ask this here.

Some developers are making games that require a harddrive, and I wonder if that will have an impact on what games Wii U gets. I know you can plug in a USB external harddrive, but will not having a harddrive come with the console cost the Wii U some games?

I remember Blizzard being asked about whether their games would be on consoles, and they said they would only consider consoles that have harddrives packed with them. They hated that some 360's didn't come bundle with harddrives.

It's definitely a plausible scenario. Though I would also assume the disc drive speeds of the time had a serious affect on that. Nintendo is good about loading from their discs, so we'll see how much of an issue that will be for them. I do hope we see USB 3.0 and games that at least have optional installs.
 
they might not be able to do that, but maybe they can get mario party 2 or some other minigame compilation instead.

Why waste wishes on bad games, if you want something from Rare it should be Blast Corps (actually now Nintendo have a HD console, do any of you think a deal for Goldeneye can now be worked out?).

NYYOs.gif
 
Top Bottom