47 replies to this topic

[neverwinteru]

Pay attention.
I'm using logic.

All that's been said about the optical drive is that it won't play DVD or Blu-Ray movies, and it will read discs in a proprietary fashion.
By using logic, you can check the specs Nintendo did give against all other optical drive technologies.
Blu-Ray is the only one that matches up.
Nintendo can not logically afford to create their own optical standard alone, and in so little time, without a single word about it until the console was revealed.

Now your turn

If nintendo were using blu ray they would have been added to the list of companies supporting Blu-ray of which they are still not apart of.

This is directly from the Nintendo Network Website of last years e3
"A single self-loading media bay will play 12-centimeter proprietary high-density optical discs for the new console, as well as 12-centimeter Wii optical discs."
If they were using Blu-Ray i highly doubt it would be something they would need to hide.
Meaning they would have already confirmed the use of Blu-Ray of which they have still yet to do.
While im not saying its impossible im am saying that there is an equal and logical argument to both sides.

Edited by Mr ECHO3, 16 March 2012 - 04:20 AM.

[InsaneLaw]

@Nollog,

You should read further into that Wikipedia article. It could use high density CH discs (like higher density HDDVD's), and Nintendo has had Panasonic develop it's discs in the past.

[Hoodbury]

http://www.computera...u-ray-nintendo/

Wii U won't use Blu-Ray.

I'm not sure why Nollog is still trying to explain it when the article Terrabyte20 posted says specifically that it doesn't use a Blue-Ray player. Just read the article, it's a direct quote from Reggie.

[Xiombarg]

Now your turn

If nintendo were using blu ray they would have been added to the list of companies supporting Blu-ray of which they are still not apart of.

This is directly from the Nintendo Network Website of last years e3
"A single self-loading media bay will play 12-centimeter proprietary high-density optical discs for the new console, as well as 12-centimeter Wii optical discs."
If they were using Blu-Ray i highly doubt it would be something they would need to hide.
Meaning they would have already confirmed the use of Blu-Ray of which they have still yet to do.
While im not saying its impossible im am saying that there is an equal and logical argument to both sides.

Blu-Ray is a brand name, so Nintendo could basically be using a roundabout/tricky method to play similar disks instead of paying out the ass in order to play such disks. Think about it critically, Blu-Ray is nothing new, but the specific technology and brand name are copyrighted. Nintendo can be using similar technology, but they cannot refer to it as Blu-Ray because they didn't pay BDA to do so.

Besides, Blu-Ray sucks and is only better because the companies actually took more time with the content and the disc can store more information.

[Lord Pickleton]

How many years until a Console will use disc's that can store 1 Terabyte or more.

Edited by Cerberuz, 16 March 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[Chinomanila]

I am hoping a bump in power, but I just want Nintendo to sell this beast. because more Units sold more games made.

[Hank Hill]

How many years until a Console will use disc's that can store 1 Terabyte or more.

Whenever those discs don't cost more to produce than most games they'll hold.

[Nollog]

Now your turn

If nintendo were using blu ray they would have been added to the list of companies supporting Blu-ray of which they are still not apart of.

This is directly from the Nintendo Network Website of last years e3
"A single self-loading media bay will play 12-centimeter proprietary high-density optical discs for the new console, as well as 12-centimeter Wii optical discs."
If they were using Blu-Ray i highly doubt it would be something they would need to hide.
Meaning they would have already confirmed the use of Blu-Ray of which they have still yet to do.
While im not saying its impossible im am saying that there is an equal and logical argument to both sides.

No need to hide it?

"Yeah, we're using our main competitors product, but to avoid licence and royalty fees, we're making ours less useful to you, our consumer."
PS3 Plays movies, Wii U will not.

@Nollog,

You should read further into that Wikipedia article. It could use high density CH discs (like higher density HDDVD's), and Nintendo has had Panasonic develop it's discs in the past.

"Like HD DVD, CH discs have a capacity of 15GB single-layer and 30GB dual-layer and can utilise existing DVD production lines."
Not 25 GB.

I dismissed HD-DVD for the exact same reason.

I'm not sure why Nollog is still trying to explain it when the article Terrabyte20 posted says specifically that it doesn't use a Blue-Ray player. Just read the article, it's a direct quote from Reggie.

If you make tiny changes to a technology, it's not strictly the technology.
However, Reggie didn't say it's not Blu-Ray, he was asked about media playback, meaning movies.
It will not play Blu-Ray movies.

Blu-Ray is a brand name, so Nintendo could basically be using a roundabout/tricky method to play similar disks instead of paying out the ass in order to play such disks. Think about it critically, Blu-Ray is nothing new, but the specific technology and brand name are copyrighted. Nintendo can be using similar technology, but they cannot refer to it as Blu-Ray because they didn't pay BDA to do so.

Besides, Blu-Ray sucks and is only better because the companies actually took more time with the content and the disc can store more information.

IKR.

I started off badly to be honest.
I said "Wii U will use Blu-Ray.", I should have added "in my opinion, based on what Nintendo have confirmed and denied, and making some logical assumptions."
I could easily be wrong. So let's not blow this out of proportion.

Edited by Nollog, 16 March 2012 - 11:33 AM.

[neverwinteru]

No need to hide it?

"Yeah, we're using our main competitors product, but to avoid licence and royalty fees, we're making ours less useful to you, our consumer."
PS3 Plays movies, Wii U will not.


"Like HD DVD, CH discs have a capacity of 15GB single-layer and 30GB dual-layer and can utilise existing DVD production lines."
Not 25 GB.

I dismissed HD-DVD for the exact same reason.



If you make tiny changes to a technology, it's not strictly the technology.
However, Reggie didn't say it's not Blu-Ray, he was asked about media playback, meaning movies.
It will not play Blu-Ray movies.

IKR.

I started off badly to be honest.
I said "Wii U will use Blu-Ray.", I should have added "in my opinion, based on what Nintendo have confirmed and denied, and making some logical assumptions."
I could easily be wrong. So let's not blow this out of proportion.

I just dont get why you cant get that it wont use Blu-ray Even when reggie has been directly quoted as saying it wont.

"What I can tell you is it won't be Blu-ray and the disc won't be a limiter to the types of experiences consumers can have." this is from the same interview posted earlier

[Nollog]

If you're not even going to read my posts, please don't quote them.

[Xiombarg]

I just dont get why you cant get that it wont use Blu-ray Even when reggie has been directly quoted as saying it wont.

This is a simplistic way of putting it.

Nintendo can be using similar technology, but they cannot refer to it as Blu-Ray because they didn't pay BDA to do so.

[Robotic Sunshine Commander]

If you look at the past consoles that used cd and dvd or even bluray drives have a considerably higher price than consoles with superior hardware for gaming. So the price shud be pretty good for the wii u

[Auzzie Wingman]

$50 huh?

In Australia, that's like $90-$100...

OMG FREE GAME!

[Nollog]

http://ie.ign.com/vi...endo-video-chat
49 minutes.
I was indeed correct.

[Zonark]

Blu rays laser isn't restricted so Nintendo could make a drive that uses the bluray laser.

[Socalmuscle]

I had mentioned a while back that Nintendo would be taking a $50 hit if they sold the console at $299-349.
The reason for that is the hardware components. They didn't mess around this time.

The cost isn't brought down by lack of a DVD drive. The system actually has a Blu-ray type drive, but it doesn't authenticate Blue-ray movies or decode them. BD drives are not expensive at all for an OEM anymore, esp without the "bag of hurt" playback licensing.

(also, forgoing the hard drive still swapped for small SSDs. While that may not save much in the way of money, it saves much in the way of wattage.)

For this season of available hardware at various cost, they did the most they could while making sweetheart deals with OEM manufacturers (ensured by loyalty over the years, assurance of massive sales, and the good publicity that comes with a "design win")to ensure they had a very powerful system while at the same time ensuring a mass market point of entry.

the problem with that is the gamepad. It added a decent amount of cost to the system and Nintendo had to offset that while avoiding a Wii type situation, hardware wise.

In Japan, they pay full price. In the U.S. we get a subsidized console as Nintendo eats some money up front (new for them starting with the 3DS). But we aren't locked into contract etc. The "subsidy" comes via game purchases. by the time a Wii U gamer purchases 3 games, Nintendo is in the black again. Especially when some games like the launch Mario game cost far less to make that true next gen games. That's also why Nintendo assured itself of a high game tie-in by having so many games available for launch and why they needed to contract ubi to crank 'em out like crazy.

Most Wii U owners will probably get Rayman, Mario, Zombi U, and at least a port game or two during the launch window.

Boom. In the money again.

Then, when the AAA games come out specifically taking advantage of Wii U hardware, many millions of sales again.

By doing this Nintendo assures themselves of being competitive in the long run, of having a large install base to sell to, and of having a sure profit.


That's why it's so laughable when some try to misconstrue the fact that the system has ported games on it that barely look better than the systems those games are made for.

The reality is that Nintendo has added power back into the equation and they have done everything possible to ensure that we buy it and that we buy many many games for it, which we will enjoy due to the fun factor, the graphical prowess, and the uniqueness (until the competition create knock offs) of the gameplay greatly enhanced by the gamepad.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 01 October 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[scotty79]

http://www.gamesindu...ly-strong-value

this article seems to have the idea that nintendo making money at the price they are selling.Maybe he isnt saying all but on the face of it it would seem a profit is being had?

[Fig]

http://ie.ign.com/vi...endo-video-chat
49 minutes.
I was indeed correct.

I admire your patience. And it's strangely awesome that you remembered this discussion. AND you posted it in the appropriate threads. I gave you an Internet golf clap.

[Socalmuscle]

http://www.gamesindu...ly-strong-value

this article seems to have the idea that nintendo making money at the price they are selling.Maybe he isnt saying all but on the face of it it would seem a profit is being had?

There is no hardware profit on the Wii U sold in the U.S. under $400.

Nintendo believes in making money on their hardware. aways has.

But with the 3DS, they HAD to take a loss because the thing was too expensive to make vs what they could sell it for.

the Wii U may not be profitable right out of the gate on its own, but it will definitely turn a proit in 1.5 years.
al
so, Nintendo upped the specs to support a 2nd gamepad (and supply some pretty awesome graphics).

If you actually want to USE that extra gamepad, you will pay through the nose for it. And Nintendo will profit handsomely through sales of that hardware as well as other accessories.

at launch though, it seems unlikely that Nintendo will profit off the Wii U hardware in the United States. they may be profiting slightly or breaking even in Japan.

Also note that they aren't interested in price drops. its the amortization effect I mentioned earlier.

They know what they are doing. The Wii U will be proiftable in the U.S. shortly and they will keep selling them at a familiar price point for years, laughing all the way to the bank.

Reggie also dodges the 3DS money loss with linking the lowered price to the operating loss that was posted. In fact, the problem was that the games that were freely offered to make up for that were ridiculous in number. that's where they made a mistake. I don't think we will ever see that again from them. If there must be a loss, it will be small and they will do that up front, knowing they can profit in a year, and profit in the meantime through accessory and game tie in.

In a year or so, the Wii U will profit here.

Reggie always talks out of both side of his face. If he flat out mentioned a loss, he will be responsible for public stock fluctuations. He is being very cagey here.

Edited by Socalmuscle, 01 October 2012 - 02:44 PM.

[Foot]

But with the 3DS, they HAD to take a loss because the thing was too expensive to make vs what they could sell it for.

3DS only cost $101 to make supposedly, pricing it at $249.99 seemed like they REALLY wanted to make a large profit because of the declining Wii and DS sales.

$101 in manufacturing plus 25% retailer cut ($62.50) is 163.50. Add extra costs (Shipping, Marketing, etc) is roughly $15 EACH, $249.99 - $178.50 = $71.49 in profit.

---

With Wii U, the basic model means $75 in retailer cut, plus any other costs $20, $95 in Extra, so Manufacturing can be about $200 and Nintendo will be only making $5 in profit, while this is not bad, it's not good. They're still losing money by paying their employees, however they have said that they'll make profit even if its slight.

This machine will be EXTREMELY NEXT-GEN POWER, but Its not going to be sold at a loss, that would be pointless