106 replies to this topic

[abbe]

^ the thing is..that graphics wont be much better for a time now, and people wont be able to tell much difference. Plus, sony said that the ps4 wont be that.much of huge graphical leap, they said that they would want to target the "c.asual"

[Hank Hill]

^ the thing is..that graphics wont be much better for a time now, and people wont be able to tell much difference. Plus, sony said that the ps4 wont be that.much of huge graphical leap, they said that they would want to target the "c.asual"

They didn't say they were trying to target the "casual" audience...they said they were trying to aim for the "women" audience. o_O....

[Wertville]

They didn't say they were trying to target the "casual" audience...they said they were trying to aim for the "women" audience. o_O....

And that's SO much better

I can't wait to see the publicity that Sony gets from their next console if that statement holds true XD

[Desert Punk]

It looks clear that Nintendo are going to deny us the information regarding the Wii U's specification so we will have to work it out ourselves when it comes out. Same thing happened with the Wii and many people assumed it was more powerful than it was. I don't think we should make that mistake again. If the Wii U had 2 GB of memory you could claim it has 4x the power of the PS3 or 360 because in memory terms it has but that wouldn't be a fair assesement.

Nintendo like huge margins on hardware and the Wii U is a small console which limits its performance somewhat. I'm not expecting mIracles from the Wii U myself but hope it will comfortably go beyond 360/PS3 in all areas to make it a worthwhile purchase.

I'm really enjoying my 3DS and like the 3D effect but I'm not very impressed with the console's power at all. Ocarina is not much of an upgrade on N64 and I have been playing Ocarina on the wii at the same time so have compared them. Not really seeing anything that can't be achieved on PSP.

Some people have said the Wii U will deliver PC performance at the time of its release and I feel thats highly unlikely unless they are meaning entry level PC.

Here in the UK it wouldn't surprise me if the Wii U is launched at something like £270-300 and its not a price I will bite at unless the Wii U is significantly superior to PS3 and 360. Its just not worth investing in a console now that is at a similar level to PS3 or 360. I feel Wii U will probably be below people's expections of a next generation console.

[Wertville]

It looks clear that Nintendo are going to deny us the information regarding the Wii U's specification so we will have to work it out ourselves when it comes out. Same thing happened with the Wii and many people assumed it was more powerful than it was. I don't think we should make that mistake again. If the Wii U had 2 GB of memory you could claim it has 4x the power of the PS3 or 360 because in memory terms it has but that wouldn't be a fair assesement.

Comparing the Wii U to the Wii is an (unfair) assumption in itself, as the Wii was the exception, not the rule. The Gamecube and N64 were both much more powerful than their Sony counterpart, only losing due to Sony's focus on over-hyping and pushing new media storage formats. The Wii was made due to the then new president, Iwata, not thinking that raw power could compete with Sony. Now that their competitors are following them into the Casual market, Blu-Ray JUST becoming mainstream and Nintendo having investment in the next media storage disk (holographic), Nintendo has no reason to remain under-powered.

Add in the fact that a large chunk of the cost of the PS360 was the internal hard-drive, which the Wii U won't have, they should easily remain competitive power-wise.

Nintendo like huge margins on hardware and the Wii U is a small console which limits its performance somewhat. I'm not expecting mIracles from the Wii U myself but hope it will comfortably go beyond 360/PS3 in all areas to make it a worthwhile purchase.

Moore's Law: Computational strength doubles every 18 months. The price-point sweet spot is around 5x as powerful as the PS360, probably being much higher than that. Plus making a huge profit on consoles was new with the Wii. Nintendo can easily go $100+ in the loss area on console sales due to the returns they make from first-party games.

I'm really enjoying my 3DS and like the 3D effect but I'm not very impressed with the console's power at all. Ocarina is not much of an upgrade on N64 and I have been playing Ocarina on the wii at the same time so have compared them. Not really seeing anything that can't be achieved on PSP.

Terrible game to use as a vocal point, OoT3D was an outsourced port that was trying to cash in on the nostalgia factor. Plus you're looking at the wrong area that was improved; The game runs in full 60 FPS, vastly superior to the N64 game.

Some people have said the Wii U will deliver PC performance at the time of its release and I feel thats highly unlikely unless they are meaning entry level PC.

I've been looking into building a gaming computer recently and have discovered that a budget one, that is still significantly powerful than the PS360, costs around $600-800 including OS. Throw in bulk buying deals, customized parts, the VAST amount of power saved from not having an OS (As well as the price saved), lack of an internal hard drive (~$75) and losses that can be made back with first-party titles and the WiiU could easily match a gaming PC while still remaining relatively cheap.

Here in the UK it wouldn't surprise me if the Wii U is launched at something like £270-300 and its not a price I will bite at unless the Wii U is significantly superior to PS3 and 360. Its just not worth investing in a console now that is at a similar level to PS3 or 360. I feel Wii U will probably be below people's expections of a next generation console.

With the way Sony and Microsoft fanboys are, I don't think it's possible to be below the average gamer's expectation. Also, there's an about 75% chance that Sony will go back to their old ways of claiming the console to be more powerful than it is, and Microsoft will likely stay with Kinect for a while, so don't expect them to push anything. ESPECIALLY because they'll probably put in an internal HDD, which will make them either significantly more expensive or significantly weaker at the same price. (And if they stick in an SDD... Well, it's probably best to skip those consoles altogether :S)

[Bill Cipher]

Gin, you win the Internet.
However, I do have a question: Why would Nintendo sell at a loss right now? it makes no sense IMO

[Hank Hill]

Gin, you win the Internet.
However, I do have a question: Why would Nintendo sell at a loss right now? it makes no sense IMO

Because in this day and age, nobody wants to pay full face value for anything. So they have to sell it at a loss to look appealing. (look at the PS3/360 for example)

[Wertville]

Gin, you win the Internet.
However, I do have a question: Why would Nintendo sell at a loss right now? it makes no sense IMO

It's not that they have to, its that they could if they needed to. For instance, if the processor needed to stream four 480p controllers and one 1080p screen booted the console to $500+, they could easily knock that down to a more marketable $400 or less.

Unlike Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo's First party usually sell a good fraction of the total amount of consoles sold, so Ninty would make back every solely on Mario Titles, not to mention Pokemon, Star Fox, Zelda, F-Zero, Pikmin and many others.

Still don't know what I'm getting at? Nintendo could overpower MicroSony's console a year before either of them are launched... yet still be cheaper. ESPECIALLY after last gen, in which they made billions off the Wii and DS and the many first party franchise best-sellers on each. It won't happen that way, but... Just thinking about how much Ninty haters underestimate Mario is hilarious XD

[Crackkat]

Well, now developers has no reason to NOT put their games on it, except that nintendo has gotten a bad name. But it is the developers that has to fix that, ninty cant do it.

Well, now developers has no reason to NOT put their games on it, except that nintendo has gotten a bad name. But it is the developers that has to fix that, ninty cant do it.

firstly i really hope this epicly high power rumour is true, are the quotes definite or possible quotes anyway regarding reasons not to make games for wii u, it seems there should be none untill u realise that the sliders arent clickable like R3 and L3 on ps3. i hate to give bad news but this may make life harder for developers plz someone prove me wrong but i dont know what buttons can replace the click buttons on ps360 controllers. how would you sprint in battlefield

[Jikayaki]

firstly i really hope this epicly high power rumour is true, are the quotes definite or possible quotes anyway regarding reasons not to make games for wii u, it seems there should be none untill u realise that the sliders arent clickable like R3 and L3 on ps3. i hate to give bad news but this may make life harder for developers plz someone prove me wrong but i dont know what buttons can replace the click buttons on ps360 controllers. how would you sprint in battlefield

This shouldn't be an issue. The touch screen can handle some functions removing them from face buttons.

[PK-Gaming]

It's not that they have to, its that they could if they needed to. For instance, if the processor needed to stream four 480p controllers and one 1080p screen booted the console to $500+, they could easily knock that down to a more marketable $400 or less.

Unlike Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo's First party usually sell a good fraction of the total amount of consoles sold, so Ninty would make back every solely on Mario Titles, not to mention Pokemon, Star Fox, Zelda, F-Zero, Pikmin and many others.

Still don't know what I'm getting at? Nintendo could overpower MicroSony's console a year before either of them are launched... yet still be cheaper. ESPECIALLY after last gen, in which they made billions off the Wii and DS and the many first party franchise best-sellers on each. It won't happen that way, but... Just thinking about how much Ninty haters underestimate Mario is hilarious XD

LOL never notices that then people from PC's will migrate .

[Desert Punk]

Comparing the Wii U to the Wii is an (unfair) assumption in itself, as the Wii was the exception, not the rule. The Gamecube and N64 were both much more powerful than their Sony counterpart, only losing due to Sony's focus on over-hyping and pushing new media storage formats. The Wii was made due to the then new president, Iwata, not thinking that raw power could compete with Sony. Now that their competitors are following them into the Casual market, Blu-Ray JUST becoming mainstream and Nintendo having investment in the next media storage disk (holographic), Nintendo has no reason to remain under-powered.

Add in the fact that a large chunk of the cost of the PS360 was the internal hard-drive, which the Wii U won't have, they should easily remain competitive power-wise.

That reply seems incredibly unfair in itself. The PS1 still had far greater storage thanks to CDs than N64 and its architecture was better designed although running at a lower mhz. You only have to look through youtube to see a huge amount of games that outperform N64 including many beat em ups and driving games. The PS2 clearly has greater polygon output than gamecube, 32bit colour not 24bit and 5.1 sound support. It also has a few high definition games like Gran Turismo at 1080i. To just class the gamecube as superior is incredibly naive. The different strengths of the consoles are utilised by different games.

Moore's Law: Computational strength doubles every 18 months. The price-point sweet spot is around 5x as powerful as the PS360, probably being much higher than that. Plus making a huge profit on consoles was new with the Wii. Nintendo can easily go $100+ in the loss area on console sales due to the returns they make from first-party games.

The reality is Nintendo cost their products as low as possible nowadays and design down to a price. Nintendo aren't pushing the envelope on this one. While the gpu is meant to be based on a 3 year old design such a chip would run too hot in such a small console and the chances of Nintendo paying for a sophisticated gpu and then underclocking it to keep it cool is highly unlikely. Its much more likely going to be a cutdown design with perhaps many pipelines and functionality reduced. It makes more financial sense to simplify the chip and pay less for it and run faster but the simplification reduces heat output. There is less restriction on the cpu as generally its the gpu that creates most of the heat in consoles. If Nintendo integrate the cpu and gpu together in a single piece of silicon I would expect the cpu perhaps to be limited to dual core but the stagger memory access speeds will help eliminate all bottlenecks and make up for this simplification.

Terrible game to use as a vocal point, OoT3D was an outsourced port that was trying to cash in on the nostalgia factor. Plus you're looking at the wrong area that was improved; The game runs in full 60 FPS, vastly superior to the N64 game.

Vastly superior it is not. I actually have a N64 and Ocarina on cartridge, plus I can play it on wii and on the original xbox emulated. Its enjoyable to play it again but its a small enhancement and is missing some functionality like rumble support.

With regard the overall power of the 3DS its clearly not powerful. There were even complaints from the japanese about the Monster Hunter demo shown for 3DS that it was inferior to PSP. I love my 3DS but its not as powerful as sony's portable console that dates back to 2004. I realise the 3DS has a better gpu but in cpu terms it only uses one 266mhz arm11 cpu for its games where as the psp can offer 2x333mhz R4000 cpus. Each offering 350-400 dmips. Yes graphically the psp is inferior and it can't do 3D and doesn't also have to create a second touch screen. However the psp does offer a higher resolution, more polygon output and more cpu power and its clear many psp games are far more ambitious.

Games like this on the 3ds;



Compared to games like this on psp

I've been looking into building a gaming computer recently and have discovered that a budget one, that is still significantly powerful than the PS360, costs around $600-800 including OS. Throw in bulk buying deals, customized parts, the VAST amount of power saved from not having an OS (As well as the price saved), lack of an internal hard drive (~$75) and losses that can be made back with first-party titles and the WiiU could easily match a gaming PC while still remaining relatively cheap.

Nintendo won't plan to make any losses on their hardware. The manufacturing budget for the console is probably $70-100. Nowdays Nintendo get their consoles made by Foxconn. On top of the manufacturing cost, they have the licensing cost for the chipsets, paying back R&D, transport, import duties, wholesaler and retailer margins, warranty costs and repairs, advertising and marketing. In between all that Nintendo clearly want a good slice of profit. Nintendo's profits on the wii were huge, absolutely phenomenal and I'm sure Nintendo don't expect to repeat that but will try to maximise profits as much as possible.

With the way Sony and Microsoft fanboys are, I don't think it's possible to be below the average gamer's expectation. Also, there's an about 75% chance that Sony will go back to their old ways of claiming the console to be more powerful than it is, and Microsoft will likely stay with Kinect for a while, so don't expect them to push anything. ESPECIALLY because they'll probably put in an internal HDD, which will make them either significantly more expensive or significantly weaker at the same price. (And if they stick in an SDD... Well, it's probably best to skip those consoles altogether :S)

Thats totally untrue. Nintendo don't subsidise their hardware. The wii was sold at a similar price to the 360 with Hdd despite the wii costing a small fraction of the cost of manufacture of the 360. This was because Microsoft were subsidising their hardware price and Nintendo were receiving huge profits.

The big issue with the ps2 and ps3 is they are overly complicated. I got a ps2 at launch and was bitterly disappointed with its performance it seemed much inferior to dreamcast. At the end of its life the ps2 got some truly amazing games that could never be achieved by dreamcast such was the steep learning curve with the console. Same is true of ps3, early titles were quite weak compared to 360 but titles designed from the ground up for ps3 are amazing.

To me the wii, ds range and 3DS are good examples of how Nintendo now operate. They cost down their hardware in order to get a good margin and produce a product of fairly limited performance. The psp still outperforms all Nintendo's portable consoles in cpu power (not gpu). Even the original xbox is superior to the wii let alone Xbox 360. We should expect the Wii U to be in the same territory as 360 and PS3.

I might add hard drives are brilliant for caching in game data really quickly. The wii u doesn't have this so will rely on either having a lot of cache memory or having a very fast optical drive. I doubt if Nintendo will run its optical drive at ridiculous high speeds and it probably won't have that much cache memory either so on that basis the wii u might have long load times. Its optical drive is only meant to be single layer so already the ps3 has the advantage of 50GB bluray discs and beyond with later triple layer and quad layer discs.

Also remember that the PS3 and 360 have gone through their learning curve. These consoles are now firing on all cyclinders a lot of the time. The wii U is new and unlikely I think to be much more powerful than those consoles anyway so we should expect some of its games to be sub 360/PS3 standards.

[Wertville]

That reply seems incredibly unfair in itself. The PS1 still had far greater storage thanks to CDs than N64 and its architecture was better designed although running at a lower mhz. You only have to look through youtube to see a huge amount of games that outperform N64 including many beat em ups and driving games. The PS2 clearly has greater polygon output than gamecube, 32bit colour not 24bit and 5.1 sound support. It also has a few high definition games like Gran Turismo at 1080i. To just class the gamecube as superior is incredibly naive. The different strengths of the consoles are utilised by different games.

PS1 had better FMV support and, as I said, pushed new media storage formats. As for better graphics overall... I play Perfect Dark equipped with the memory expansion pack and then end my turn.

As for the PS2's higher poly count... Are those Sony's words, or yours? Because all of the muli-plat games, even when they were made for the PS2 after the Gamecube, look worse then the Gamecube counterpart. Examples include: Resident Evil 4, Tales of Symphonia and Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life.

The reality is Nintendo cost their products as low as possible nowadays and design down to a price. Nintendo aren't pushing the envelope on this one. While the gpu is meant to be based on a 3 year old design such a chip would run too hot in such a small console and the chances of Nintendo paying for a sophisticated gpu and then underclocking it to keep it cool is highly unlikely. Its much more likely going to be a cutdown design with perhaps many pipelines and functionality reduced. It makes more financial sense to simplify the chip and pay less for it and run faster but the simplification reduces heat output. There is less restriction on the cpu as generally its the gpu that creates most of the heat in consoles. If Nintendo integrate the cpu and gpu together in a single piece of silicon I would expect the cpu perhaps to be limited to dual core but the stagger memory access speeds will help eliminate all bottlenecks and make up for this simplification.

Did you read what I wrote?

I didn't say 'Nintendo will go over the top and go with a high end CPU and GPU chip that will blow the PS360 out of the water and be 5x as powerful!!!!111'

I said 'Due to the nature of new technology, it only makes sense that the console will be 5x as powerful at a minimum.'

No matter how low end the Wii U gets, it doesn't change the fact that it would be hard not to dwarf the PS360 in this day and age. But then again... I assume you think that the PS360 was using bleeding-hot-off-the-shelf-stop-the-presses technology back 6 years ago? I didn't know Sony was losing $1000 off each console.

Vastly superior it is not. I actually have a N64 and Ocarina on cartridge, plus I can play it on wii and on the original xbox emulated. Its enjoyable to play it again but its a small enhancement and is missing some functionality like rumble support.

O.o
What's the argument here? You can play N64 games on your Xbox?
Just the higher quality textures, 10 extra FPS, greater view distance, more polygons, ect. already make the 3DS version substantially superior...

With regard the overall power of the 3DS its clearly not powerful. There were even complaints from the japanese about the Monster Hunter demo shown for 3DS that it was inferior to PSP. I love my 3DS but its not as powerful as sony's portable console that dates back to 2004. I realise the 3DS has a better gpu but in cpu terms it only uses one 266mhz arm11 cpu for its games where as the psp can offer 2x333mhz R4000 cpus. Each offering 350-400 dmips. Yes graphically the psp is inferior and it can't do 3D and doesn't also have to create a second touch screen. However the psp does offer a higher resolution, more polygon output and more cpu power and its clear many psp games are far more ambitious.

Games like this on the 3ds;



Compared to games like this on psp

Well, first off... I was certain the 3DS had 2 CPUs. Source for your information?
Second off... How is a Wii port with enhanced shaders worse than a PSP game? If you're talking about the many Vita fanboy comments, then obviously they'll claim that the 3DS version looks worse than it does. I, on the other hand, have only heard that it looks better.
Third off... I have no idea how much of a rush-job Ridge Racer was/is, because I don't play racing games. Compare Samurai Warriors, though, and it's clear that the 3DS is superior to the PSP. (PSP couldn't even do whole maps in Dynasty Warriors, iirc.) And that's a launch title. Now go look and Dead or Alive or Resident evil: Revelations and tell me that the PSP is stronger. Those are 1st year games.

Nintendo won't plan to make any losses on their hardware. The manufacturing budget for the console is probably $70-100. Nowdays Nintendo get their consoles made by Foxconn. On top of the manufacturing cost, they have the licensing cost for the chipsets, paying back R&D, transport, import duties, wholesaler and retailer margins, warranty costs and repairs, advertising and marketing. In between all that Nintendo clearly want a good slice of profit. Nintendo's profits on the wii were huge, absolutely phenomenal and I'm sure Nintendo don't expect to repeat that but will try to maximise profits as much as possible.

Where's your source on the price limit? If they're selling the console at $350-400, as assumed, then it's not hard at all for them to make a console that is substantially more powerful than the PS360. And, as I've stated, they can go into losses and easily earn profit from their games, like they're doing right now with the 3DS. Especially because they're wooing 3rd parties at the moment. They didn't exactly focus on that with the Wii and DS.

Thats totally untrue. Nintendo don't subsidise their hardware. The wii was sold at a similar price to the 360 with Hdd despite the wii costing a small fraction of the cost of manufacture of the 360. This was because Microsoft were subsidising their hardware price and Nintendo were receiving huge profits.

I don't know about you, but here the Xbox360 launched about $200 higher than the Wii.

The big issue with the ps2 and ps3 is they are overly complicated. I got a ps2 at launch and was bitterly disappointed with its performance it seemed much inferior to dreamcast. At the end of its life the ps2 got some truly amazing games that could never be achieved by dreamcast such was the steep learning curve with the console. Same is true of ps3, early titles were quite weak compared to 360 but titles designed from the ground up for ps3 are amazing.

Err... Yah? That's pretty irrelevant... All consoles have a learning curve; Later games always look better than early ones. The Dreamcast would have killed the PS2 graphic-wise had it survived longer.

To me the wii, ds range and 3DS are good examples of how Nintendo now operate. They cost down their hardware in order to get a good margin and produce a product of fairly limited performance. The psp still outperforms all Nintendo's portable consoles in cpu power (not gpu). Even the original xbox is superior to the wii let alone Xbox 360. We should expect the Wii U to be in the same territory as 360 and PS3.

The original xbox isn't superior to the Wii, though... Where are you getting your info O.o?
Also, you seem to be ignoring... Well, ALL developer statements about the Wii U. They're making ENHANCED versions for the Wii U. As in 'If you want to buy the best version of the game, GET THIS ONE' enhanced versions.

I might add hard drives are brilliant for caching in game data really quickly. The wii u doesn't have this so will rely on either having a lot of cache memory or having a very fast optical drive. I doubt if Nintendo will run its optical drive at ridiculous high speeds and it probably won't have that much cache memory either so on that basis the wii u might have long load times. Its optical drive is only meant to be single layer so already the ps3 has the advantage of 50GB bluray discs and beyond with later triple layer and quad layer discs.

Where has it been stated that the Wii U won't be able to use dual-layer disks? And since when has the PS3 been able to do Quad-layer, let alone triple? Sources?
Also, you're claiming that HDD is faster than SSD... Actually, you're doing something even more ridiculous. ANY PC gamer can tell you that the HDD is the last place you want to temporarily store information. SSDs are much better, but still not ideal. There's a reason devs have been asking for more RAM, and I'd like to once again point out that Nintendo is playing a dating sim game with them right now. They're aiming for a harem ending. That one's impossible to get without RAM.

Also remember that the PS3 and 360 have gone through their learning curve. These consoles are now firing on all cyclinders a lot of the time. The wii U is new and unlikely I think to be much more powerful than those consoles anyway so we should expect some of its games to be sub 360/PS3 standards.

One again ignoring all non-01.net news that we've been getting. You're seriously lucky that I responded to this with all the troll claims you've been making. Especially considering that the Wii U is made to be similar to PC architecture. That's kinda a lot easier to work with than the PS3.

[Bill Cipher]

Wert, you win the internet. I see how you got there with everything you said, because you backed it up with EVIDENCE. Not personal beliefs.

[Jikayaki]

Here is an interesting piece of information pulled up by Bgassassin from Neogaf. The article in question is from earlier in the year and was apparently not looked at closely previously outside further confirmation along with other sources that the GPU within the Alpha dev kits was a Radeon HD 4000 series card. If the article is correct the GPU within the Alpha dev kits may of pushed beyond 1TFLOPS. Basically the card within the early dev kits would of had to been a Radeon HD 4870 at least to reach that level of performance and that certainly would of explained the over heating issues rumored with the first dev kits.

http://translate.goo...611_452478.html

Thread regarding the Wii U from Neogaf where Bgassassin posted this info: http://www.neogaf.co...434824&page=178

Edited by Jikayaki, 15 October 2011 - 10:43 PM.

[Desert Punk]

PS1 had better FMV support and, as I said, pushed new media storage formats. As for better graphics overall... I play Perfect Dark equipped with the memory expansion pack and then end my turn.

As for the PS2's higher poly count... Are those Sony's words, or yours? Because all of the muli-plat games, even when they were made for the PS2 after the Gamecube, look worse then the Gamecube counterpart. Examples include: Resident Evil 4, Tales of Symphonia and Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life.

Did you read what I wrote?

I didn't say 'Nintendo will go over the top and go with a high end CPU and GPU chip that will blow the PS360 out of the water and be 5x as powerful!!!!111'

I said 'Due to the nature of new technology, it only makes sense that the console will be 5x as powerful at a minimum.'

No matter how low end the Wii U gets, it doesn't change the fact that it would be hard not to dwarf the PS360 in this day and age. But then again... I assume you think that the PS360 was using bleeding-hot-off-the-shelf-stop-the-presses technology back 6 years ago? I didn't know Sony was losing $1000 off each console.



O.o
What's the argument here? You can play N64 games on your Xbox?
Just the higher quality textures, 10 extra FPS, greater view distance, more polygons, ect. already make the 3DS version substantially superior...


Well, first off... I was certain the 3DS had 2 CPUs. Source for your information?
Second off... How is a Wii port with enhanced shaders worse than a PSP game? If you're talking about the many Vita fanboy comments, then obviously they'll claim that the 3DS version looks worse than it does. I, on the other hand, have only heard that it looks better.
Third off... I have no idea how much of a rush-job Ridge Racer was/is, because I don't play racing games. Compare Samurai Warriors, though, and it's clear that the 3DS is superior to the PSP. (PSP couldn't even do whole maps in Dynasty Warriors, iirc.) And that's a launch title. Now go look and Dead or Alive or Resident evil: Revelations and tell me that the PSP is stronger. Those are 1st year games.


Where's your source on the price limit? If they're selling the console at $350-400, as assumed, then it's not hard at all for them to make a console that is substantially more powerful than the PS360. And, as I've stated, they can go into losses and easily earn profit from their games, like they're doing right now with the 3DS. Especially because they're wooing 3rd parties at the moment. They didn't exactly focus on that with the Wii and DS.


I don't know about you, but here the Xbox360 launched about $200 higher than the Wii.


Err... Yah? That's pretty irrelevant... All consoles have a learning curve; Later games always look better than early ones. The Dreamcast would have killed the PS2 graphic-wise had it survived longer.


The original xbox isn't superior to the Wii, though... Where are you getting your info O.o?
Also, you seem to be ignoring... Well, ALL developer statements about the Wii U. They're making ENHANCED versions for the Wii U. As in 'If you want to buy the best version of the game, GET THIS ONE' enhanced versions.


Where has it been stated that the Wii U won't be able to use dual-layer disks? And since when has the PS3 been able to do Quad-layer, let alone triple? Sources?
Also, you're claiming that HDD is faster than SSD... Actually, you're doing something even more ridiculous. ANY PC gamer can tell you that the HDD is the last place you want to temporarily store information. SSDs are much better, but still not ideal. There's a reason devs have been asking for more RAM, and I'd like to once again point out that Nintendo is playing a dating sim game with them right now. They're aiming for a harem ending. That one's impossible to get without RAM.


One again ignoring all non-01.net news that we've been getting. You're seriously lucky that I responded to this with all the troll claims you've been making. Especially considering that the Wii U is made to be similar to PC architecture. That's kinda a lot easier to work with than the PS3.

Its not hard to show the PS1 very competitive with N64 graphically. The N64 had the big issue where it would create a low resolution image and then intepolate/upscale it up to create a larger resolution image unfortunately it looked very soft.

The PS2 had the big issue that although it had amazing polygon output it didn't have texture compression in hardware it meant it often had to reuse textures much more. Its a very eccentric design but achieves great results with the very best developers.

Yes I can play N64 games on my original xbox. I've installed XBMC and also run a few emulators I still have my N64 though and about 30 carts.

My point about Ocarina is its basically the same game. If you run the N64 version next to the 3DS version its the same game. There is a bit more graphic detail in the 3DS version but in playability its not a huge difference. Its like playing Super Mario Bros on the NES and then playing it again on the Super Nintendo. Its the same game just slightly prettier. If anything it feels better to control on N64 and you have rumble support not present on the 3DS.

All the DS models including the 3DS have dual processors, one is for running games and one is for the background operating system, wifi, decrypting, decompressing etc. Its how the 3DS operates. Games can only run code on one cpu. The 3DS is no different. The PSP in contrast has 2 cpus both accessible to running routines. It actually has 2 megabytes of memory dedicated to its second processor. The wifi chip has its own arm chip so doesn't need to use either of the main processors. Although actually in the latest psp they have removed wifi and this arm chip in a cost cutting measure. The point is the psp doesn't run a background operating system like the 3DS.

Clearly if you don't think the original Xbox is superior to wii you have made a huge assumption. It just about beats it on every level. I'm not going to go into the specification as this widely available but here is one of the few platform games on xbox showing full use of the xbox graphics (although actually a N64 conversion) with 32bit colour, rich texturing and a full 5.1 soundtrack. Its impossible to offer 32bit colour and true 5.1 sound on wii. Soul Caliber II for example is 720p and 32bit colour on xbox which again is something impossible on wii. Not forgetting the ability to bring in data from the hard drive very quickly to enhance games which is a feature of all original xboxes.



Show me a wii game that even comes close to Conker on xbox. I've been playing wii games for years and I've never found one.

Sony has claimed later firmware updates may add the ability to use extra layers on bluray discs. Currently the ps3 is limited to 50GB discs but it could offer upto 100GB discs easily. The drive has the ability but its not in the firmware currently I think.

I'm certainly not claiming hdd is better than normal computer memory my point is its far superior to using optical discs which require a lot of buffering. Last thing I heard about the Wii U was it had 8GB of SSD memory which would be for game saves and downloaded games and content plus possibly game patches. Its not for caching games as they load.

I'm not trolling at all, I'm trying to put some realistic perspective into a collection of Nintendo fanboys. We just don't know how powerful at this point the Wii U will be but Nintendo are withholding the information for a reason and that is most likely poor performance. The N64 and Gamecube were very competitive designs for their time and we knew all about their specification before release. When Nintendo released the wii they withheld the specification and it was absolutely dire. They just rereleased the gamecube with slightly more memory and running a bit faster. It was totally uncompetitive with 360 and PS3. The Wii U again has very limited information about its specification which suggests we will be shafted again by a low performance console.

I love Nintendo games but we need to be realistic all signs are the wii U will underperform. The 3DS specification was never officially announced and we are now seeing games of fairly limited performance certainly way below the best the psp has achieved.

You criticised Resident Evil 4 on the ps2 as it is inferior to the gamecube version graphically and there is no doubt it is but when you look at that game and then compare it to Resident Evil Mercenaries or Revelations that ps2 game looks absolutely amazing. There is much more going on, onscreen and its a fantastic game and its doing that at about 3x the resolution of 3DS.

My point is if you are releasing a console and hiding its specification before sale its likely not going to be good.

I'm still absolutely staggered that you didn't realise the original xbox is much more powerful than wii.

Here is a video of Half Life 2 on xbox. It has 32bit colour again, full 5.1 soundtrack, a full physics engine in operation and blows away any fps games on wii I can think of.

[Vericitus]

Desert Punk, you're cracked in the head if you think the 3DS isn't more powerful than the PSP.

Resident Evil Revelations. End of discussion. It runs effects completely 100% NOT POSSIBLE on PSP and at 30fps which is a far cry from basically any PSP game I've ever seen.

And no Wii game looks better than Conker? Are you serious? Try Mario Galaxy or Mario Galaxy 2. Not only are the textures sharper and cleaner, but the game also runs at 60 fps locked.

As for Half Life 2, it's hard to compare since Valve didn't see fit to port that version of Source over to the Wii, but Metroid Prime 3 is in the first person, has comparable world and character size, and runs at 60 fps too, which is a far cry from that Half Life 2 clip you showed us, which struggled constantly.

You criticised Resident Evil 4 on the ps2 as it is inferior to the gamecube version graphically and there is no doubt it is but when you look at that game and then compare it to Resident Evil Mercenaries or Revelations that ps2 game looks absolutely amazing. There is much more going on, onscreen and its a fantastic game and its doing that at about 3x the resolution of 3DS.

Wow, just... wow. You couldn't possibly be more wrong. RE4 on the PS2 is nowhere near Revelations man. Revelations is, once again, doing stuff like pixel shaders and things that the PS2 simply can't do. (BTW this is hilarious isn't it, apparently the PS2 is more powerful than the 3DS, and the 3DS is more powerful than the GC, so that means that the PS2 is morew powerful than the GC. Lovely logic coming from a guy who claims to be fighting off fanboys, eh?)

Sorry dude, but you are wrong, You're just throwing videos and specs (like 32-bit color which *BZZZT* doesn't exist. It's just 24-bit color with an 8-bit alpha channel. More useful as a bullet point than an actual imporvement) around thinking that's all you need. You're either a troll, or BADLY misinformed.

[Wertville]

What Vericitus said.

I'd also like to mention that hiding specs in no way means that a company plans to under perform. I'm pretty sure the Gamecube didn't reveal its specs, but I had dial-up back then, so don't quote me on that. But I would point you to the PS2 which Sony revealed 'specs' about, most of which turned out to be true only in technicality, such as how many polygons it could do per second.

Also, I doubt I would reveal my specs if I were up against a company who is known for copy-pasting their competition's ideas...

[Bill Cipher]

Desert punk, I'm seriously beginning to believe you are either misinformed beyond all belief or severely biased. Every time someone points out a flaw in your logic, you seem to replace it with more flawed logic.

Edited by N Harmonia, 16 October 2011 - 05:36 PM.

[Andy]

What Vericitus said.

I'd also like to mention that hiding specs in no way means that a company plans to under perform. I'm pretty sure the Gamecube didn't reveal its specs, but I had dial-up back then, so don't quote me on that. But I would point you to the PS2 which Sony revealed 'specs' about, most of which turned out to be true only in technicality, such as how many polygons it could do per second.

Also, I doubt I would reveal my specs if I were up against a company who is known for copy-pasting their competition's ideas...

Actually, Nintendo did reveal the specs for the GameCube, and they ended up being made fun of for it. From my understanding, what happened was before the release of the gen 6 systems, the big three were talking about how many polygons could show up on screen at one time on there system. Sony said that the PS2 could do 90,000 polygons at once. M$ said that the X-Box could do 140,000 polygons at once. Nintendo said that the GameCube could do around 30,000 polygons at once. Needless to say, this lead to quite a bit of bashing from Nintendo haters. However, what Sony and M$ didn't say was that that was the amount of polygons that the PS2 and X-Box could show if they were only showing polygons. They didn't take into account things like textures, lighting and other effects when they made those statements. Nintendo did take those factors into consideration when they said how many the GameCube could show, and it ended up being the middle console in terms of power. So basically, Nintendo got bashed for being honest about what their system could do. After that, I would also stay quiet about the power of my system.

Edited by Andy, 16 October 2011 - 07:39 PM.