I am doing this with Wii U, 3ds, and PC. It isn't fanboyism, but rather, time constraints. I would love you have everything, but I cannot justify the expense unless it will occupy hours of my time. Honestly, I cannot justify the expense of PC upgrades if the game is on Wii U. 

 

Honestly, a game like Ninja Rabbit is giving me more enjoyment than online shooters ever have. I guess I am not hardcore enough for a second console anyway, LOL. 

 

 

He's trolling.  Regardless, GDDR5 won't make any difference with regard to game visuals.

Nothing you said is correct, just none of it.  "GPU-Centric games" all next gen games will be GPU centric because all next gen systems are GPU centric. 

 

The main memory bandwidth is not understood, and only criticized by sites that are willing to forgo journalistic integrity for hits. When any real analysis or discussion is done, with people who actually develop for the system, there are never any of these criticisms.  No criticism of the GPU, no criticism of the memory architecture, and yes, not even any criticism of the CPU.

 

40nm is not a cheap process, it is just common at the moment.  They are not using "low bandwifth" RAM chips, they are using DDR3, the current general purpose processing memory standard.  Their memory architecture is actually much more robust and efficient than PS4's.

 

Wii U isn't "competitive" with PS3 and 360, it wallops them, The weak point of the WiiU (the CPU) is more powerful than both of the PPE based CPU's with regards to IPC.  The only area where it is weaker is SIMD, which is not necessary on a GPU centric system.  Still, the SIMD on the CPU is enough to get equivalent if not better performance on games that are ported and running on two of the CPU cores (using CPU SIMD still, rather than GPU).  It was revealed recently that all of the ports for the WiiU only had access to two of the CPU cores because the tools were very immature, it still was able to run CPU-centric games.

 

Again you are arguing GLFOPs when they mean so very little.  When will some of you people realize that FLOPS is the new GHz, its the big number that can be used to market chips.  WiiU has fewer FLOPS from fully programmable shaders, yes, but 50% of the GPU logic is not accounted for.  PS4 will be pretty much all unified shaders, no custom logic.  WiiU is not the same, and while it is still a weaker GPU, it is not as weak as you think.

 

For reference, RSX (PS3 GPU) was marketed by Sony as having 1.8TFLOPs.

 

Your arguments are tired, and you apparently refuse to read anything that isn't in agreement with your confirmation bias.  Learn something before responding again with nonsense.

Thank you, Sir. You continue to make fantastic posts that stand as beacons in a sea of confusion. 

 

Everything remains to be seen from Sony and Microsoft. Even then, next gen is going to rock at 1080p and sub 30 fps. Anyone getting consoles for graphics fidelity is fooling themselves. Get a console for exclusive games and new ways of playing. 

 

I have news for everyone, if the PS4 was as powerful as they will claim, it would cost $1500 at a loss, and be very large. Remember the PS3's promises? Routerbad points one out. I remember 2 monitors, 1080p as a standard, 4d, and various other nonsensical claims. Meanwhile, the Wii U has 1 game being showcased on mature development tools at the moment that isn't a remake. 

 

The internets are a lot of fun around console launch times. I have really missed it. 

Well, I have not experienced any of the issues they are talking about. Erratic control? Not once. If anything, my accuracy is better than in other games, which surprises me (controller aiming is not my thing). 

 

FPS dipping from 32-28 is not a big deal. .875% of a dip will be unnoticeable during gameplay. Where it becomes an issue is when you end up bouncing 15-40% all of the time. That is hinders gameplay. 

 

Finally, Capcom probably did a 'lazy' port. If by 'lazy', they targeted the PS3 as the lead technical platform for the consoles, and made it work on the Wii U and 360, then we really do not have much to complain about considering the userbase and software attachment ratios.  At least both versions look identical, and the PC version, outside of tweaking settings, appears to have the same assets/engine settings. 

 

So, DF spins their conclusion with another subtle smear on the Wii U's technical capabilities, oh well. Remember when the die shots were released, and they proclaimed their forecast was accurate, only to have Chipworks come out and essentially refute everything? Time has shown Latte to be so customized that nobody really knows what it is (precisely). 

 

I really wish Nintendo optimized their tools a la Microsoft. Imagine multi-platforms running better at all times regardless of the lead platform. I am shocked that Nintendo did not learn from the PS3's early years (outside of not releasing a complicated architecture). Nintendo is in the position of helping third parties at this stage in the product's life cycle, not expecting them to figure it out. 

I honestly love the potential for the gamepad and TV integration for exclusive titles. Stuff like Wario G&W is really exciting to me, as this concept could carry on to the indie scene. Speaking of that, some of these IOS and Droid devs have a great deal of potential, but those games are limited by the lack of buttons (my opinion). 

 

(Nintendo's IP's+Indie Devs)^GamePad=excitement 

 

This will be interesting. I hope third parties end up on board. However, it will have to be a la Watch Dogs (separate development team), or it will always feel like tacked on half assery. 

I dislike MS's customer service, so no. It roots back to a RROD with a purchased warranty, and getting sending them my 360 in mint condition. They sent me a stained one in return that died quickly after. Worse yet, they never refunded the paying warranty holders after everyone got a free warranty.

Then came Windows 8. So no. I think I will go PS4 or Steam Box if the need for a second console arises.

I dislike MS's customer service, so no. It roots back to a RROD with a purchased warranty, and getting sending them my 360 in mint condition. They sent me a stained one in return that died quickly after. Worse yet, they never refunded the paying warranty holders after everyone got a free warranty.

Then came Windows 8. So no. I think I will go PS4 or Steam Box if the need for a second console arises.

Haters gonna hate
 
Doesnt matter if the X1 doesnt have used game fee's or not, people will always find something

Fanboys yes, but would you rather have MS or Apple in your living room? It seems like the customer is an after thought, and they have a reverse value proposition.

Speed. I want to boot up enter a game, and play within a minute or less. As we see, gamers, specifically the repeat buyers, should be focus number one. Their side activities, number 2, and everyone else will come.

Neither
 
#GoogleTV

Lol. I already run. A HTPC so the XBone disappoints.

But this post is from my Nexus.

I believe it is reasonable to expect a lack of support as the main concern over and beyond power. Other than that, my impression is this:

 

Ultra Hd

High-End PC-Very High

Mid Range PC-High

 

1080p

PS4-Medium

Xbone-low to medium

 

720p

Wii U- Low to Medium

 

This is, say, 2 years from now. Of course, we need sales and third parties in order to prove any kind of theory. The current 'toss on something old since those Wii owners don't have other consoles' thing is not helping. However, anyone with a PC now can try bumping graphics up and down, with a controller in hand, and seeing how large of a difference it makes to the game experience. It just isn't the big deal it used to be.

 

So, underpowered, compared to what? Certainly not to the extent Wii was incompatible with the current generation. 

 

 

 

 

This can get tiring. Maybe I should copy paste a generic response to these type of posts.

[/sarcasm]

Anyway, I digress. You cherry picked PS3, so let me do a little cherry picking of my own.

I remember when the 360 came out people harped on Rare's PD Zero for looking not much better than original Xbox. That nothing at launch showed the system and what it can do. So I guess the 360 was doomed, and it isn't capable of running games like Gears of Wars, Halo 3 & 4, Assassin Creed III and Watch Fogs, right?

Look, every generation we have that one game for a console that really shows what games will look like. Gears of Wars was that game last generation. That was a YEAR after the 360 launched. How long has the Wii U been out?

Look, this is just ludicrous that people expect end of generation level graphics at the start. With the PS4. and X1, it's possible only because developers know the hardware. But with Wii U they have to learn it's strength and weaknesses, and it's very clear listening to developers that the Wii U does better when you use it's features instead of trying to use what worked on past consoles.

[/End of Rant]

In addition, we have the ROI factor. The budgets on these games are enormous, so much so that a publicly traded company (or any company for that matter) is concerned with getting the product running, and taking advantage of the gamepad. 

 

With 2.5 million users or so (2012), and a lower attach rate, the incentive is not really there to pour resources into optimization. Re:R is a good example of a compromise. A 360/PS3 port that takes advantage of the Wii U's unique features. Sniper V2, from what little I played, appears to run well, but seems like an attempt to cash in before more competition enters the market. 

 

Now, with the Xbone and PS4 imminent, with the same architectural design (GPGPU), we should see down ports of those versions. I hope we do at least (in the case of Watchdogs and Drive especially). In this instance, it makes less sense to port the 360/PS3 versions unless no other resources (marketing, DLC) are used for the Wii U version. 

 

I presumed, from rumors of the quad core PPC and 4850 that the Wii U was a souped up 360 from an architectural standpoint, or roughly a 1080p PC from 2008-9. Given what we are seeing, I am wondering how Nintendo thought launching early was possibly a good idea, considering that the summer update appears to bring things closer to a final version for consumers, and more mature tools are emerging for developers. 

 

Great thread guys, very enjoyable reading! 

Guys,

 

I honestly believe the following:

 

1. Nintendo's exit with the Wii hampered Wii U excitement.
2. Confusion over the controller compounded with #1 has a lot to do with less enthusiasm. 
3. Nintendo honestly believed the gamepad would be the next Wii Controller with consumer response. 
4. Item #3 hampered focus from graphic fidelity to gamepad integration and focus. Hence the lack of tools (possibly one, non-intentional reason, but this could explain why things were so poor at launch).
5. Finally, items 3&4 led third parties to believe functioning software, with gamepad integration, would provide a decent ROI. Given the low install base and probable attachment ratio, the investment did not need to be too high to begin with.  

Now, this is really item 6, and this deserves it's own paragraph. Publishers have watched year over year decreases in game sales. They anticipate the PS4 and Xbone to reverse this trend. Hence forth, they are spending as little as possible to bring ports to a new market (Wii U), while holding back until the 'big boys' launch. At this point, the Wii U's install base is bigger, and they know that one of two things will happen:

 

1. The new consoles will face shortages, which will increase Wii U sales.
2. The Wii U install base will grow.

Why post this in a thread about the Wii U's technical prowess? I think everyone can see why, but if not, allow me to conclude:

 

Ports from the Xbone are coming. The architectures are too similar, and the costs of developing for the PS4/Xbone will be too great to not have the game on every platform possible (these new games will not be like the PC games of console ports on very high, but rather, new, more ambitious titles).  The game market will not explode to the levels we saw in 2007-2009. The tablet did not exist, and the overall gaming options that you can get, for free, on PC were not as sophisticated (for casuals). Plus, the market is always changing, as people age and demographics shift (my 7 year old wanted an Ipad Mini over a Wii U:(). 

 

The point? This is a business. Money is the final arbiter. If I have this figured out, you can bet Nintendo does too.

They didn't think that the Wii U controller would cause the same amount of excitement as the Wii did, but they were under heavy pressure by investors to release new hardware, and fast, because sales of the Wii were declining rapidly.
 
Now, they had a general idea of where they would like to go with it hardware wise, but they weren't finished revising the hardware until mere months before launch.  As a matter of fact, it was the week of e3 2012.  This left them with little time for optimizing and revising the OS, stress testing and getting a solid feel for the hardware and how it performed in real world operations (theoreticals don't really help with the actual kit), or get decent tools out to developers who needed them to work on games with very little time to push to market.

I don't know, none of it adds up. Having a content filled 2010, followed by killing the Wii in 2011 with very little support, and expecting a half baked successor to fill the gap? I would think the board of directors would not approve.

However, they were not expecting the Wii to be a hit, and they had the HD console on stand by in case it flopped. Yet it was a huge success.

With what your saying, the only logical business strategy is to bank on the Wii brand name to stimulate early adoption. It seems as though it is the logical choice given the parameters.

But...on the technical end, it was not as simple as releasing a machine that played current ports better. Instead they had to optimize for games 2 years out and beyond.

So, I am left trying to reverse engineer their business strategy. The machine,s power is not up for debate until we see actual next gen titles on it IMO.

You mean a Gears of Wars type of title? I didn't mean Gears of Wars will be released for Wii U.
But I am positive we'll see sone marvelous footage at E3, especially if UbiSoft Shows Wii U Watch Dog footage.

And I just have an issue with expecting something from Nintendo that hasn't ever happened in console gaming in a long time. This isn't like a jump from 2D TO 3D. This isn't like from SD TO HD. This generation will be smaller leaps in graphics. That's all I'm saying.

Nintendo wanted a head start. Unfortunately, they didn't capitalize on it. Good thing, because the fact the hardware was still being developed last year means they were addind features they needed. But it also makes it hard to develop for.
If I were a developer, I'd make for Wii U, and then port that way. It makes the most sense because it's easier to move up then it is to down grade.

That seems to be the most logical, yet it appears as though there is either an established engine on another platform, or the game already exists on another platform.

I hope if Watchdogs is Wii U/360/PS3, that Wii U is lead. Otherwise, I hope the rumors are true and the game is ported from the PS4 to see how comparable the machine is.

We already know it won't be.  They are using two separate teams to develop the x86 and PowerISA versions of the game.  The team that is making the Wii U version will downport to PS360, the other team will make it for PS4 and XBone

  

The wii u version of the game started along with ps4.
360 and ps3 started later.
The wii u version will likely use PC/ps4 assets and vice versa.
And this is to be expected of most games as the new generation continues with new consoles entering the market.

  

They are developing the next Gen together. It's not ported from PS3 and 360.

I hope it turns out really good. Without specific screens, and an influx of GAF rumors, one can get a little concerned that the Wii U version would be on a completely different level. Then again, the GAF group presumes the PS4 will be ultra efficient, and the Jaguar cores will all be available to games. Oh, and that the cores are fast, lol.

Third party publishers like Activision expect the same thing to happen with the other consoles.

No, they expected the Wii to be a success. They launched the DS as a test for the causal market. When that sold, the HD console you speak of ceased development and they finished the Wii concept.
That's why the DS was called the third pillar, and they said the Game Boy brand wasn't dead. You seen any new Game Boys lately? (still hoping for a return someday lol)
They didn't kill the Wii intentionally, it just ended up doing that. Nintendo made a lot of mistakes, but the graphics didn't suffer because of gamepad development. The only thing that hindered graphics is it was released in 2012. If it was released in 2013, it would be on the same level as the others and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
However, Nintendo released in 2012. And you know what? The difference between these three consoles, aren't that huge if a gap like Wii vs PS3 & 360.

I forgot about the third pillar, lol. I figured then that it was a fancy way of saying transitioning into a different demographic before expanding the product across the entire demographic. Including GBA BC made me think this way.

I did not know they expected immediate success with the Wii. I presumed they expected to expand into the blue ocean while offering the established market something the competition was not. Hence all of those Wii's gathering dust next to the HD Twins awaiting exclusives.

So,launching in 2012 makes sense with regards to the global economic recovery, yet 2011 fit better with Nintendo's product cycle.

What I have problems understanding, from an R&D standpoint, is how the architecture could not be finalized by E3 2011, with dev tools and software being developed from then on? I believe everything in it existed at this point, may be wrong. Clock speed would be all that remained.

I appreciate routerbad and yourself for being so generous with your time in regards to discussing these concepts.

I am going to come on here and make all sorts of complaints about it;). 

 

No, actually, I will be too busy trying to figure out how I will make time for all of the new games. I don't expect to be too concerned anyway. I was playing Crysis 3 maxed on 1080p the other day, and switched back to the Wii U and Sniper V2. Either I am blind or I am just not seeing a huge discrepancy. 

No problem at all .

I agree with what routerbad said completely. Just want to add, that, it's good all the tech wasn't done by E3 2011 in a sense. If it was, that would mean the Wii U in video card generations would be two generations behind instead of just one. And that could end up making a difference in graphics that people think exists today.

Although developers I am sure developers hated that.

 

 

No problem at at all.  

 

The real reason why they didn't have final hardware much earlier will probably never be known.  Technically, none of the components existed until Nintendo and IBM developed them.  They are based on previous architectures, like Power7, PPC, and AMD Unified Shaders, but the final product is anything but.  

 

The target hardware for the wii u early on was rumored to be something like a high end HD4XXX series GPU, with a pure Power7 CPU.  Because of all of the difficult R&D that needed to be done to develop a wireless video standard with broadcom that worked with zero lag and no tearing, artifacts, etc, the GPU had to be designed at the same time to work flawlessly with that standard.  My guess is that it took them longer to develop the tech behind the gamepad than anything else, and that the GPU was finalized once they were settled on that.

 

Also, as 3Dude pointed out in another thread, they wanted eyefinity, which only debuted with very high end 5XXX series GPU's, and made more broadly available for HD6XXX.

This may help others reading, and I know it will help my general understanding:

 

My impression of console development is that it gets finalized at some point. The foundation, so to speak, is there. In this case, Nintendo, AMD, and IBM know they are going with a GPU, most likely custom from the 6 series (2010), and the tri-core Power 7/750 base chip. Leaving the gamepad out for a moment, I would presume the only thing left for the box itself would be the clock speeds, amount of cache, and so forth. Or, put another way, that initial dev kit, with the 4850 inside, it should have been the target for the OS. 

 

As they got closer with the gamepad and finalized specs, I would have thought that the OS would have been patched along the way. 

 

What I am having trouble understanding is how the OS was in such a state at launch, and how the dev tools were to the point where launch games were using 2 cores. 

 

Note: I am also under the impression that the MCM is simply a customized e6760 and IBM  solution to fill in the gaps. Without a real target game from Nintendo to show off technical capabilities, it is hard for someone not really tech savvy (like myself) to rationalize the issues they have had outside of the gamepad development (which is an amazing achievement along with the low power consumption). 

I think people downplay graphics because of the losers who only care about "dem grafix." Honestly, it does actually enhance the experience you have with a game. Is it necessary to have great graphics? No. But they are a nice bonus.

I agree. I have a theory as to why this matters so much to Nintendo fans. This is based solely on empirical  observation:

 

We want Nintendo's software and innovation, but we do not want to miss out on the innovation being brought forth on other machines. However, we only want to buy the one system. The lack of power and the userbase restricted this last gen, and Nintendo's stubbornness restricted this with the N64 and GCN (lack of online limited sales potential). So, everyone presumes we must see comparable titles or all is lost, and we will need to buy a PS4 or, God forbid, an Xbone. We could always save a gajillion dollars (joke implied) and build a PC that makes consoles irrelevant real soon after launch as well, but we do not want that either.

 

I will make a 'Pachter' (speaking the blatantly obvious) prediction-if Nintendo can increase their sales and third party attachment rate, they will receive optimized software. If not, the Wii U could be a Haswell CPU with a future 8990 AMD dual GPU (the 8 series does not exist yet), and developers would not bother. 

The original prototypes and the software environment was built around weaker hardware than ended up in the system, that is true.

 

Because it took so long to get the hardware finalized, the OS itself was not optimized for it by the time they were preparing for launch.  This is a big reason behind the utter lack of marketing, Nintendo are sandbagging the Wii U intentionally (they know early adopters will buy into it anyway, they just thought there would be more) because they themselves felt the software environment was not ready.

 

The real problem is that the GPU is so very divergent from the original target hardware, that all of the tools would have had to be rewritten both to take advantage of the GPU at a basic level, and to properly use the gamepad.  For the gamepad they needed to essentially upgrade the target hardware in order to get the performance they were looking for with the gamepad, and AMD tech like eyefinity fits perfectly.

 

It isn't just a customized 6760, its the other way around, in fact.  Its a custom chip that happens to utilize the AMD unified shader cores from the 6760 that they licensed.  It's a brand new animal that no one was prepared for.

 

I assume they still haven't nailed down the best clock speeds, and the cache on die was based on their budget for the chip.  They really thought of everything, and companies like Shin'en that really understand GPU tech through and through are able to be authoritative on the fact that there is plenty of power there if you know how to use the system properly, and everything is designed for extreme efficiency.  No clock cycles wasted, as it were.

 

The great thing is that many of us are already satisfied with how the system basically operates, and that says something, because Nintendo isn't, and they will continue to improve all aspects.

I see, so it is not as simple as releasing specs for software, and making the hardware engineers work around it (this was also playing into my thoughts, like how all different parts will work with Windows regardless of architecture changes within the x86-64 spectrum to a point). Rapping your head around a closed system is very difficult. It is like capital budgeting, but locking yourself in without any alterations, for years. I never considered it from this angle. 

 

The different levels of memory cache are interesting as well. What is even more pertinent is that Microsoft is using a similar strategy, yet Sony is going with the GDDR5. I have read, but have not fully understood, the concerns on Sony's approach. I also have trouble understanding how 8 Jaguar cores and a 7970m are going to merge into an APU. 

 

One aspect with Sony's system that seems to be apparent is that the power will be exploitable from day one, presuming a game exists that can take advantage of it. However, their approach seems unbalanced to me. I do not know how that cpu/gpu combo will be able to use half of that ram without running into bottlenecks of it's own. Not to mention the obvious reserves for the OS (which I suspect some of those cores/gpu compute unites to be reserved for, and why MS is lower spec in comparison for undoubted OS efficiency vs Sony). 

As much as I wish I had a gaming PC I will never have the cash. I really want to get a PS4 but the DRM rumor scares me.

You would make it up in Steam sales. The wild card is the next gen, and what those requirements will be.

For example, a core 2 duo and Radeon 2900xt should run everything thing the 360 has better than it does. However, it does not work out like that. My and 8350 and 2x 7970s should crush next gen, but it will be minimum requirements at gens end if I am lucky. The consoles do have some advantages, too.

If only I had a desktop. I wanted to get one but this laptop is a gift and getting it replaced now would be disrespectful. Thanks anyway.

Oh no, I don't think you should go that route yet anyway. 

 

If someone enjoys PC Gaming, or wants to get into it, and feels price is the barrier, it simply is not true. Yet, it is misleading to suggest the same, spec for spec, box with the new Xbox in 2013 will last it's entire life span while playing the games. It most likely will not. 

 

Plus, if you have a Wii U now, and you have enough to play, you can get a new console next year when games are discounted. Catch up, and, guess what? No driver issues, games always run exactly as expected across all machines, and so forth. 

 

In essence, the PC 'master race' thing is over stated, but this really long generation made it somewhat essential for some yearning for an upgrade. Others enjoy PC specific features. Personally, I like, above all else, being able to customize the hardware. 

 

However, I cannot imagine life without the gamepad now. So, Nintendo has sort of killed the PC for me, LOL. 

The GPU will not be a 7970, for starters, at the very most we're looking at a 7770.  Sony is big on putting out numbers that tend to not be true in real life situations, so I wouldn't even count on that at this point.  They claimed RSX had 1.8TFLOPS as well.

 

You are right in assuming that they'll run into hardware bottlenecks long before memory bottlenecks, where those hardware bottlenecks are is anyone's guess at this point.

 

The reason MS went with a lower spec, and even Nintendo went with a lower spec is that much of that additional power will be wasted.  PS4 having more power will not show on screen due to the diminishing returns we're seeing in the GPU space, and why GPU makers just add more shaders linearly along with more RAM for their more powerful cards.  Those cards are MUCH more power hungry, run MUCH hotter, yet produce maybe a few more frames than a midrange or budget card.  The benefit of too much power in a closed system like this is limited.  You have to find a balance that works.

 

Exactly, Microsoft is an OS company, and that shows through brilliantly on the XBONE.

 

Nintendo is a game company, OS's and online infrastructures aren't in their natural wheelhouse, though I'm sure they're learning very quickly to make it their wheelhouse. 

 

That is what perplexed me about the PS4 and GAF proclaiming this 7970m theory. Of course, the rumors of both machines using 7770 variants were out there for a long time before this, which had me believing that the Wii U would be a no brainer with regard to multi plats. However, GAF, as you suggested earlier, appears to be something like Gamefaqs for wanna be tech heads, with a microscopic percentage of actual knowledgeable people. 

 

 

Your GPU comment appears accurate, especially with AMD's road map, and Nvidia's release. We are not really seeing quantum leaps anymore. Only newer, slightly more efficient ways to do the same thing slightly faster. The power draw may drop slightly on some cards, yet increase on others. It depends on whether or not it is a rebrand or an actual reconfiguration. In either event, it is as though a new GPU card in XFire or SLI is good for 3 years before there is even a reason to upgrade. 

I'm going to go ahead and bring up the argument I used against a friend. We are not at the point of marginal returns. Console makers make their consoles less powerful so as not to lose so much money and then want you to believe that. Until we are at a molecular level in games, there will always be room for improvement.

But, the Tflops and cores! Honestly, the scary thing about the path of increased graphics on a linear scale will be production costs, and an inevitable situation where you get a few clones of 3 genres. To EA's credit, they tried some new things with Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, and a few others in 2009, but that was probably not the best time to do it. 

 

If anything, those IOS games and Nintendo's Indie initiative is probably a very good thing. Looking at tech as a prop is, quite possibly, the best thing the industry can do. After all, when you watch a movie, do you go on a forum and argue about the technicalities of a movies' special effects vs another? Games and systems should, hopefully, reach that same standard. Art. 

 

 

 

 

First question: OS, why was it in such a bad shape? Honestly, Nintendo sucks at OS creation. The Wii was vwry basic, and the Wii U was an upgrade to it's design. I think they should use Linux, but they haven't listened yet.

As for the developer tools, Nintendo had no excuse. I don't know why they didn't give proper help to the developers. They learned from that mistake, but it was too late.

Hopefully that helps.

After seeing routerbad's comments, I am not sure MS went with a lower spec. If the machine is a 7770 with the same CPU, and DDR5 memory vs embedded ram, a similar gpu/cpu setup, and the same DDR3, I am no so sure as to how the PS4 has a real advantage. It would be like giving a budget card 8 gigs of ram when it could not possibly use it. I do agree about diminishing returns. Sitting on a couch, 4-10 feet away, and with a controller will limit the need for a constant 60 fps. 

 

I can see the potential with the OS. I really want to see the whole thing get as fast as it is when going from in game to the browser. I think this is possible. Do you? 

Also, why advertise your system and games to a bunch of people who already bought it?

Bingo! The goal will be to get traffic around the demo stations, and then build interest. I would not doubt there is a further relationship with Best Buy that we will see continue in the near future.

 

It is really brilliant-the interest around the Wii U is displayed before the competition even has demo stations out. People see this, and even try out systems. Best Buy gets an increase in traffic, Nintendo gets a potentially huge increase in sales/mindshare.

 

I think the whole thing is brilliantly done. I am fortunate enough to have a station about 30 minutes away from may house. I am going to try to go on the weekday and check it out. Ah dang, I keep forgetting school will be out. I guess waiting in line will be unavoidable.

i will feel dissapointed because i want to pay more

I read this earlier, and I am still laughing at it. I love posts like this. 

 

After going through the cycle with GPU's and consoles, I have a formula-wait a little while after launch to buy. Maybe not years, but give it some time. Do not fall for the hysteria. In the case of consoles, you will clean up on launch software at a better price for some titles, and others will be patched. PC titles will almost always be better months after launch, and possibly cheaper because you miss out on the bugs. 

 

My plan for this launch? Enjoy the Wii U. Let the PS4 earn my business, and make sure I buy it when I can walk into the store and easily buy one. There is nothing worse than having two launch consoles (I did this with Wii and PS3) and not being able to really fully enjoy either one. 

 

I don't see why anyone is disappointed in the Wii U given the above. If your an early adopter, you knew that the probability of first party delays was great, and you also knew you could get third party titles elsewhere. You also paid the price of entry. So, I do not see what there is to be upset about.   

 

I should disclose that I am not really interested in the PS4 now, but when Uncharted comes out, the wife will make me buy one and play through it so she can watch it. Of course, she was like this with the Wii U and Metroid/Mario. Could be much worse, lol. 

Laughable. If the Wii U will be affected by the loss of non-traditional gamers, where does this leave the Xbone? Until the used game thing gets sorted out, how can he presume the Xbone will receive equal consideration with the PS4, unless Sony reveals something equally offsetting? If this is the case, does he not believe there will be a positive reaction towards Nintendo from traditional gamers? 

 

I can't comment on the handheld issue outside of, well, thanks again captain obvious. IOS/Android games will eat into hardware sales, but, so would any device. It will not eat into the sales of people wanting to play Nintendo/Sony exclusives, on a real handheld gaming machine. I am surprised he did not comment on Razer's platform eating into the high end, and costing the other handhelds software sales for those who bought one, LOL. 

 

On a serious note, damage control before E3. He is just citing the highest probability scenarios with the pertinent information investors want to see when speculating on market fluctuations. If anyone said what they really thought at a time like this, and they were anyone outside of a news correspondent, they would not be employed/running a firm after their predictions were both wrong and backed by pure speculation (I personally believe people are waiting to see the PS4/Xbone, along with Wii U games side by side before committing. We will see a Wii U sales bump after all three are displayed regardless of any announcements based on consumer parity).