DXB-KNIGHT
Member
Metroid 26th Anniversary
Wii U Speculation Thread The Third: Casting Dreams in The Castle of Miyamoto
- Thread starter AceBandage
- Start date
Shenmue 3
AceBandage
Banned
herzogzwei1989
Banned
kinda off-topic, but
What Game Devs Want From Next-Gen Consoles
http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/167557/what_game_devs_want_from_nextgen_.php
What Game Devs Want From Next-Gen Consoles
http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/167557/what_game_devs_want_from_nextgen_.php
But how much does 8/16GB of flash that gets 100-150MB/s cost? (and that's not a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know) Also, regardless of any other hardware, everything still needs to be read from the disc-drive, so faster drive speeds are always beneficial.
Basically GDDR5 has higher bandwidth (twice as high at the same clock), but GDDR3 has lower latency and is cheaper. The eDRAM could be there as a way of offsetting the lower bandwidth of GDDR3, but it could also be there to offset the higher latency of GDDR5 for all we know. Also, keep in mind that Nintendo focussed on RAM latency rather than bandwidth or capacity the last time they developed a console from scratch (1T-SRAM in the GameCube).
Not sure how a game that is unimportant enough for Sega to potentially cancel it is an important title for Wii U.
herzogzwei1989
Banned
I think if Nintendo does go for a 1TFLOP GPU they should high-light that at E3.
4x the Xbox 360's Xenos.
That would be fucking awesome.
4x the Xbox 360's Xenos.
That would be fucking awesome.
I know this is Nintendo we're talking about :/
AceBandage
Banned
Actually, this is a bad idea.
They shouldn't give any specs to the public, because they'll just be used as fodder by their competition and idiot fanboys.
Not sure about the US but 60GB SSD's that do around 200-300MB/s are available for £60. So a 16GB version, bought in the millions?, surely couldn't be much more then £10-£12 each? Wether that's cheap enough for what Nintendo want I don't know. Suppose they could go with 8GB if neccesary.
Always-honest
Banned
they won't. In fact, we won't find out untill waaay after e3.
AceBandage
Banned
I know, and I agree with that decision, even if it does drive us slightly mad.
There is absolutely no benefit from telling your specs to potential consumers so far in advance. Especially when the highlight should be on software.
Gahiggidy
My aunt & uncle run a Mom & Pop store, "The Gamecube Hut", and sold 80k WiiU within minutes of opening.
Why is that off-topic? Because you don't think the Wii U is a next-generation console?
AceBandage
Banned
That's quite a leap, man...
LOL
No one buys a machine because of how many flops it does.
As far as I understand (and there's a good chance I'm wrong here), SSDs work somewhat like RAID arrays, in that there's, say, 8 x 8GB flash modules in there, each running at about 30MB/s to provide that bandwidth (and in fact the overall bandwidth is usually limited more by the controller than the flash chips themselves).
Anyway, I was thinking that SD cards would be closer in terms of the sort of embedded flash Nintendo would be looking for, but while I can find a Sandisk 16GB 95MB/s SD card on Amazon for £33.50, I don't know how that compares to bulk prices for a similar chip in an embedded setting.
Edit: Just checked iSuppli, and apparently 16GB of flash used in the new iPad costs $16.80. No idea how fast it is, though.
Glorified G
Member
um... he didn't directly say that.
He said flops will allow them to create the best quality experience possible which in turn will drive people to buy machines.
I Stalk Alone
Member
If the flash was used to store the games from the bluray drive then it should do it while you are already playing the game and not have to make you wait like MGS4 on the PS3 whenever you finished an act. There should be sufficient enough space to store half the content of a dual layer WiiU disc but that would be 32GB nand chip for the smallest flash chip close to 25GB. Maybe 24GB used for the game disc (1GB not copied for redundant security data that only the disc needs) and 8GB for OS and apps and game saves. You can use an external HDD to store more games but it would still be needed to be loaded in the flash in the background while you are playing kind of like a progresssive version of the doors opening and closing on metroid prime to make the game more seemless.
ShockingAlberto
Member
That's exactly what DICE has been telling Microsoft, too.
AceBandage
Banned
It means the same thing, though.
Flops does not, and has never, determined how good a game is. It allows for them to do a bit more, sure, but it doesn't allow for anything special if the developer doesn't properly use that power (which is the major problem with this generation).
Smiles and Cries
Member
it is better that they never announce it then no one can be disappointed
these companies are failing to make good business decisions left and right. it is heartbreaking to love any IP too much because you may never see it again
These people will most likely crash the console sector of the video game industry.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Also, yeah, I've heard the Sega rumor, too.
They had a reboot of something planned (honestly don't know what, but going by context clues, I am guessing JSR) for Wii U that's been cancelled.
They had a reboot of something planned (honestly don't know what, but going by context clues, I am guessing JSR) for Wii U that's been cancelled.
No.
That is just tragic.
That would be fucking terrible if true
I'd rather not find out what it is than to know we could have had a new JSR.
Glorified G
Member
They didn't say graphics only determines a good game, but that it helps them deliver the best quality experience.
You may disagree, but to some graphics have huge impact on a game. And considering the countless "OMG NINTENDO IN HD FINALLY! *DROOL*" posts in this thread, some people here agree with this more than they allow themselves too.
herzogzwei1989
Banned
No, not at all, I just felt they weren't talking specifically about the Wii U very much.
I'm thinking that Wii U will bridge the gap bebween XB360/PS3 and XB3/PS4. It's gonna be pretty powerful, especially with the amount of RAM the thing has, best guess: 1.5 GB. That *may* even give us a clue as to how much CPU processing and GPU rendering power it has.
Then again, I could be wrong.
Yes.
Nintendo resisting changes? Really? (Because introducing motion control and tablet controllers is resisting changes.)
Next Xbox and PS at 400$? Heck, he even said he could see them launching at 300$!
The whole thing is bullshit.
The problem is that these developers will use the added oomph of new consoles to design and develop only a small category of games (most likely fps's). Variety is slowly but surely dying.
Glorified G
Member
Why is this so inconceivable? The 360 was as cutting edge as you can get in 2005 when it was launched. and it was $399/$299.
You don't think Epic has made good use of this generation's power? They may not be my favorite type of game, but the Gears of War games are impressive.
$400 then is not the same as $400 now.
They were loosing money on it, then.
AppleBlade
Member
I have to disagree, I don't ever remember having so many weird and unique games easily available to me (mostly downloadable).
AceBandage
Banned
In what way? They look good, but the gameplay is fairly simplistic and definitely not something that couldn't be done on weaker system.
boiled goose
good with gravy
bgassassin
Member
According ONFI, the 3.0 specification allows up to 400MB/s per interface. 2.2 allowed up to 200MB/s.
http://onfi.org/specifications/
While that would be nice, I don't think that amount would be necessary (though I'm also assuming you said those amounts only as an ideal scenario).
All the more reason why TIE is correct.
That's a shame. I'm assuming all we will see from Sega is a Sonic game of some kind now.
Glorified G
Member
$400 wasn't exactly peanuts in 2005 either. I don't think inflation plays much of an impact. They'll charge whatever they think the market can bear.
and now they've doubled their userbase & making a profit. All I'm saying a $399 uber powerful console in 2013 is not as batshit as you think it is.
Who?
Thanks to Kinect and Live.
bgassassin
Member
Somebody tell Nintendo to pull out another moneyhat and save that game.
bgassassin
Member
TwinIonEngines a.k.a TIE Fighter
I think you're wrong in a way Ace. More power makes prettier games and There's a lot of people put there who love prettier, bigger, louder games. I would argue its probably 80% of the 360 market.
Looking at games through Michael Bay tinted glasses is depressing but it's a reality nonetheless.
Tim Sweeny said:
This social integration thing is something I'm not sure Nintendo will do as they seem to like to build their own ecosystems. However if they can use existing systems also, then it will definitely be a hook for a lot of people. We live in a different world (for better or worse) now that there are Facebook and Twitter.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I don't think concern should be about variety or creativity.
DICE isn't going to suddenly start making 3D platformers even if we stayed at this level of tech.
But there's a ceiling to this stuff and, as that ceiling raises, the middle gets stretched further and further.
Let's say the top cookie is Activision, EA, Epic, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc., the companies that can afford AAA games. They might not like spending that money, but they can.
The bottom cookie are the lower-tier developers (in terms of budget, mind you). They might work with bigger publishers as developer farms, they might be digital distribution only, they could be looking at worldwide sales of 100,000 and being happy as fuck because that's better than they ever imagined.
The creamy middle is everyone else. THQ to Konami (though I think this may no longer be true of either of them for different reasons and directions), Tecmo to Koei, Atlus to Zoo Games. This was, at one point, the biggest part of the industry.
Then comes us.
We twist and pull the top cookie off, lick off the cream, and demand more. The cream that gets attached to the top cookie is gone. The rest can't compete. And all we have is a hunger for more of the highest budget stuff.
When I see "Microsoft is making a AAAA game," I get genuinely concerned. Not because I don't want high budget games, high budgets can be awesome! Uncharted 2 would have been a worse game without the money they threw at it (and UC3 was a worse game with more, so it's not always a direct correlation both ways). But as graphics capability rises, the consumer is going to want things that take full advantage of that, and the top of the industry is going to supply it to them.
And when that becomes commonplace, we'll suffer with greater prices, more lost jobs, more cut corners, and more content stripped away to become DLC on the first day because they want to raise the effective game price to $70 but can't because the market won't bear it.
tl;dr Raising the graphical ceiling is all fine and dandy until the budgetary high-end becomes the middle and it's absolutely inevitable that it will happen.
DICE isn't going to suddenly start making 3D platformers even if we stayed at this level of tech.
But there's a ceiling to this stuff and, as that ceiling raises, the middle gets stretched further and further.
Let's say the top cookie is Activision, EA, Epic, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc., the companies that can afford AAA games. They might not like spending that money, but they can.
The bottom cookie are the lower-tier developers (in terms of budget, mind you). They might work with bigger publishers as developer farms, they might be digital distribution only, they could be looking at worldwide sales of 100,000 and being happy as fuck because that's better than they ever imagined.
The creamy middle is everyone else. THQ to Konami (though I think this may no longer be true of either of them for different reasons and directions), Tecmo to Koei, Atlus to Zoo Games. This was, at one point, the biggest part of the industry.
Then comes us.
We twist and pull the top cookie off, lick off the cream, and demand more. The cream that gets attached to the top cookie is gone. The rest can't compete. And all we have is a hunger for more of the highest budget stuff.
When I see "Microsoft is making a AAAA game," I get genuinely concerned. Not because I don't want high budget games, high budgets can be awesome! Uncharted 2 would have been a worse game without the money they threw at it (and UC3 was a worse game with more, so it's not always a direct correlation both ways). But as graphics capability rises, the consumer is going to want things that take full advantage of that, and the top of the industry is going to supply it to them.
And when that becomes commonplace, we'll suffer with greater prices, more lost jobs, more cut corners, and more content stripped away to become DLC on the first day because they want to raise the effective game price to $70 but can't because the market won't bear it.
tl;dr Raising the graphical ceiling is all fine and dandy until the budgetary high-end becomes the middle and it's absolutely inevitable that it will happen.
Hero of Legend
Member
Can you elaborate on said clues?
I wanted so badly for Headstrong to revive it on Wii U, and we may have just lost that opportunity. :'( :'( :'(
I Stalk Alone
Member
They lost multi billions on it and you expect MS and sony not to learn anything from that venture? 10x at $399 last gen and you lost $200 a console 10x at $599 for PS3 and you also lost $200 per console due to Bluray.
What would be smarter is that they release maybe 4-6x last gen for $349 release this year and break even. or release december next year for $349 at 8x the gpu power also at break even but then you just risk losing the generation to nintendo before you launch.