Narcidius

Us. when we're not gaming, we're on the internet talking about gaming, that's a hard core gamer. We're on a forum spending time socialising with other gamers online, by talking about gaming

Someone who plays video games as a primary hobby. They tend to spend large amounts of time playing games, often in excess of two or three hours a day.

Hardcore gamers tend to care less about graphics then casual gamers. While some specialize in a single genre, they typically have fairly diverse taste in games, frequently playing a wide variety of games from different genres. They'll often seek out obscure and older games, based on word of mouth or positive critical reception. Hardcore gamers put good gameplay above all else, and don't mind if a good game has poor (or even nonexistent) graphics, sound, characters and plot.

Many articles have already stated that Nintendo would have to literally go out of their way to produce graphics lower then, or even comparable to that of PS360. Those components are either no longer supported or they are dirt cheap, possibly costing less to produce now then the components used in Wii when it was new.

And remember, Wii, despite being the weakest of the current consoles was still a step up in terms of graphics from the previous generation. So even if Nintendo wanted to make another "graphically-weak" console like Wii, which they are not going to do, it would still at the very least have better graphics then PS360.

wii and gamecube have practically identical gpus, its just one is run at 160mhz and the wii at 240mhz. The wii gpu still has exactly the same limit on 2meg frame buffer and 1 meg texture cache etc. Also remember the wii U gpu will feature either a wii compatibility mode for its gpu or it will duplicate the whole wii gpu within the wii u gpu and have some sort of switching process like the 3DS has between its pica gpu and the ds mali gpu.

They wouldn't have to go out of their way at all to achieve a lower gpu performance. In fact in costcutting terms a lower performance gpu saves them money. It will mean a smaller silicon footprint and the possibility to integrate it into a major chip with perhaps the cpu, cpu cache, gpu memory etc. Also a reduced performance gpu allows a cheaper cooling system and the possibility of a reduced output psu.

There are still so many rumours about the specification of the wii u. Some analysts are writing them off because its in some ways they believe its less powerful than 360/PS3 and other analysts are stating its going to be too expensive. Nintendo are in a difficult position. I believe Nintendo are aiming to be profitable, offer reasonable performance and a competitive price point. To me that is $299 with performance around ps3/360. In some ways weaker and some ways stronger. It will have more memory for a start this already gives it a huge advantage, as for cpu and gpu either or both could perform below 360/PS3 but that is only a generalisation as a gpu is so complex that in someways it could be much better and in others much worse.

Clearly I'm hoping the wii U will be superior to 360/PS3 but I do feel this is highly unlikely. I just don't see how Nintendo can fit powerful hardware into the wii U case and sell it at a low price.

Its also worth pointing out its cheaper to put a simple gpu in a console and run it at 350mhz than put a complex gpu in and run it at 200mhz. Not only do you have to pay a lot more for the silicon and royalties for the more complex gpu but you make no performance gain if this causes you to run it slow in a tiny case. I just can't see Nintendo fitting a fan that sounds like a jet engine in the wii U.

You do realise both the PS3 slim and 360 slim models which are both much larger than wii U have very large fans running at high speed to cool them and the current consoles are using the latest in manufacturing technology. Many still over-heat on hot days if ventilation isn't adequete. At the current time it would be very difficult for Microsoft to put its Xbox 360 chipset in the wii u case for example. Also lets not forget Nintendo doesn't do unreliable consoles. It has a history of doing robust consoles that take abuse from children. The slot loading mechanism in the wii isn't just there because its smart technology. It holds the disc more securely hence why car cd players are all slot loading as it copes with vibration much better. Same with PS3 but Microsoft went cheap with a standard tray mechanism. Whatever the specification of the wii U the vast majority of them will work on day 1 to the time they are finally retired when something new comes out.

I have been playing a ton of open world games lately and I have been noticing so many things that would make them better with the Wii U controller. 1. The world map on the controller. I hate having to pause the game and look at the map just to see my objective or to fast travel in games. So I would love to have that on the Controller. 2. Weapon selection. I have been playing Skyrim and I always have to switch back and forth to change from Magic to bows while in the middle of a fight and It takes away the immersion of the game. I would love to do it right on my controller, without having to interrupt the game. 3. Split screen. I love playing split screen with my Brother in games like Borderlands and MW3. But it takes up most of the tv screen and it gets a little hard to see what is going on in the game at times. So I would love my Brother to play on the controller while I have the whole tv screen to myself. 4. Creative screen play. What I wan't to see a lot of on the Wii U is creative activities that you can do with the controller screen. For example, sweeping your hand around the screen to take of dust on a book or picking a lock using your own fingers. So those are some of my ideas for the Wii U's controller screen, sorry for the really long comment.

nfc(near field communication), almost entirely true,
long range usage(like the other side of your house)
stuff that could allow you to control your tv, or use the tablet as a univeral remote for some sort of interactive tv menu (it was conecepted somewhere
and im too lazy to add more
be warned you may have made a double post, dun dun dunnnnn

Some of you guys are young, under 18 and it shows. Sega and Atari both make video games. No hardware, just games. I'm in my mid-30's and have been around during the rule of Atari and the launch of the two greatest systems ever. NES and Gameboy. I watch Atari,Sega,NeoGeo(all 100 versions) and many others fall only to see Nintendo walk a the Champ time after time. Fast forward to Smartphone/tablet era and I'm starting to see Nintendo stumble. Sony and Microsoft didn't cause this. There becoming victims themselves. Everyone(except Apple) knows that console gaming is 1000x better than smartphone/tablet gaming. You can't even compare the two experiences together. However, Apple does realize that there's more people with .99 cents-$4.99 than there are people with $45-$60. When people by an app or game .99 cents big companies(Nintendo,Sony,Microsoft) see it as someone taking a dollar off their $45 dollar game making the value of the game lower. The more everyone buys cheap apps the more the companies lose out. That's why more games are sitting longer on the store shelves. That's a big part of the reason Nintendo is taking such a big loss recently. Nintendo may have the answer with it's new WiiPad this time though. But, imagine if Nintendo were to release some of their IP's as smartphone/tablet apps like Sonic. This would seriouly generate large amounts of cash for Nintendo and introduce new gamers to Nintendo's brand. I'm not talking about make games for Sony and Microsoft. Just portable apps of some of their older IP's for smartphones and tablets. It's a win win situation. Alot of times tradition and pride holds Nintendo to their stubborn posistion. Apps are a well missed opportunity for Nintendo.

If Nintendo doens'nt want to release their IPs as apps because their stance is that those mobile devices are not legitimate gaming devices. Putting Mario on their platform would legitimize their platform as a gaming platform. I mean, the best selling franchise of all time on another system would definately give the iOS/Android gaming cred, which could eventually cannibalize their own hardware sales, which would result in few software sales.

That's what I believe to be Nintendo's reasoning.

As far as increasing their profitibility, I agree with you, Gameboysoadvance. I believe that if Nintendo made a legitimate Mario game for iOS and Android, with a reasonable budget, it would easliy be the best selling app of all time. I'm talking put Angry Birds to shame (individual game downloads, not total franchise). I mean, who the hell wouldn't buy a Mario game for 99 cents and at least try it out? Especially if it gets good journalist reviews and user reviews. It's a great opportunity that Nintendo sees no doubt, but they are worried about how it will effect their own hardware business. I agree with you about the extra exposure it would give their franchises. That is an excellent point. I'm just trying to delve into the minds of Nintendo.

You are so wrong it's not even funny.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ5KXO4hQ8k&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.c...feature=related[/url]

Watch that and shed some wisdom into your skull.

I've read many of your posts, even posts where you show footage of games falsely claiming they are from the wii U. I'm trying to be realistic about the wii U. Who does it serve to pretend the console will be more powerful than it is. I believe what I believe based on the evidence that is available and the past history of Nintendo and how they operate. I don't attack your posts even though I feel they are completely wrong but lets just see what unfolds. We both have our positions and in time we will see who is wrong and who is right.

If Nintendo makes a decent phone that can compete with other companies off the bat (no need for revision, pretty much something that replaces the iPhone completely on day one), then I say they should go for it.

Of course, it would really need to do anything and have that Nintendo appeal. I mean, a phone needs a lot to do to even compete. iPhones pretty much have the benchmark of what a standard phone needs to do at the moment (although there are better phones, any kind of phone that does less than an iPhone is pretty much getting the finger).

It needs be a swish deal on day one. Because there's so much risk in even going down this path, Nintendo probably won't do it. IF they did pull it off at the level they would need to, "Nintendo am Doomed" would be banned in all countries.

This is why I don't think Nintendo should make a phone.

What OS would they use? WP7? For obvious reasons no. If they decided to go the Android route they'd end up paying Microsoft for every handset sold and they'd also risk a few lawsuits. Even if they do go the Android route they'd get lost in the sea of Android devices. Unless in some alternate world smartphones end up becoming the future of gaming why should Nintendo spend the cash to make their own Operating system? Also, I'd expect a handheld-smartphone hybrid to be packed with some of the best specs available with a nice sized battery. This device could very well end up being more powerful then their dedicated handheld and eat away at its sales. A phone like that wouldn't be cheap. It could end up at $200+ on a two year contract. I'm not even gonna get into the $1000+ you'd spend over the life of a contract. It wouldn't be a very good option for those of us who are younger.

The most important part is the games. If I were to spend a large sum of cash on a Nintendo phone I'd want to play quality Nintendo IPs on it. Trust me, you aren't going to get people who have no interest in gaming to pay $40+ for quality games. If only us "gaming enthusiasts" would be buying this phone and games for it they might as well just stay in the handheld market.

Another point is battery life. People would be using their phones for other tasks other than gaming. What if you were to find yourself in an emergency and your phone is dead from playing games on it? That would suck.

The market isn't ready for a true gaming phone.

No, when the console market finally crashes as it inevitably will do, they can make games on other platforms, or make hardware with games pre-installed like game&watch, but obviously more capable.

-

Well we have had some feedback from developers and PR people at publishers. The developer leaks state a console a bit below 360/PS3 overall, the PR statements predict something about equal to possibly more powerful but then PR people will mainly oversell a product. Something like the killer freaks footage which is being developed on a wii u development system looks a bit weak compared to ps3/360. All indications are a console with more memory than ps3/360, a superior optical drive to 360, a weaker gpu and possibly a cpu that could be anything upto a quadcore 3ghz powerpc chip although I personally think it might go well below this like a 2 or 3ghz dual core chip because I think they may try to incorporate the cpu on the same silicon as the gpu. However I've got my fingers crossed here that we are going to get a quadcore 3ghz powerpc chip.

I think this is perfectly reasonable based on the console costing about $299 in the states, featuring a expensive controller, a small console with limited cooling ability and Nintendo's need to sell it at a profit. The wii, DS series, 3DS are all very underpowered compared to the competition and have been very successful. I see no reason for Nintendo to break their old habits. I'm near certain the wii U will be at least underpowered a bit in gpu terms overall compared to 360/PS3.

To be honest I've not read one explanation anywhere how Nintendo could fit a powerful GPU into the small form factor of the wii u console. Its only going to be using a small fan like the original wii. Most of the case is going to be occupied with  slot loading high density optical drive.

Lastly gearbox stated that the wii u has more memory and more cpu power, where as the developer leaks stated weak gpu. Neither of these statements conflict with each other.

Its cpu power and memory that govern how complex a world is, which is where the wii u does well and its the gpu that governs how well that world is presented and in this case the wii U may be a bit weak so not quite having the ability to match 360/PS3.

So Skyrim for example could have slightly simplified graphics on wii U but have a better physics engine, better frame rates, better a.i etc.

To be honest when you look at a game like Skyrim on the 360 for example it looks amazing, very beautiful, I could happily play that game with slightly inferior graphics especially if it meant higher frame rates etc.

Do people even want a console that is $450 etc that is more technically powerful instead of a lower power model at $300? It would only mean less people buy the console and less games get developed. Its in our interest that Nintendo make a profit and can afford to develop their brilliant games on the console.

Also for cartoon graphics you don't need such a powerful gpu anyway. A mario game will not need sophisticated texturing or lighting. Considering the sort of games that Nintendo develop why do they need a state of the art gpu? Surely better to concentrate on memory and cpu power anyway which can be utilised fully by all games?

See, the thing with these kinds of topics is that the damn console hasn't even been released yet and people are saying either WiiU blows because of it's specs or WiiU rocks because of it's specs, when the actual spec report hasn't even been released yet either. We won't truly know until the WiiU comes out, and even then, we still have to wait another year or so before PS4 and 720 get their chance in the spotlight. I can actually speculate on what the system would BE like, but most of you guys are already on the bandwagon and saying statements like "WiiU DEFINITELY will trample Sony and Microsoft" without even experiencing the actual consoles yet. This is why debates like these are pointless and ends up going nowhere.

I would like to have everything on this list to be on the Wii U but i am most interested in to how the online infrastructure will work due to the fact that there being more lenient about there online and possibly making online run through the gaming companies severs making online faster and have the possibility of running a true mmo experience on consoles by having automatic updates from game devs and getting out patches quicker for their games.

Seems like your arguing over semantics

Yes, i hate when it's wrong - it boggles the mind

@stewox
not sure about the exact impetus for this explanation... but everyone who's confused about the issue should definitely read your post in its entirety.

@gameboysoadance
er... like nollog said, not exactly.  an api is only a part of a dev kit (it's not an engine) - really, just a library or set of specifications that allow software compontents to communicate with one another.  Unreal Engine (or CryEngine for that matter) uses the DirectX API for its PC version... what stewox is pointing out is that it's up to the 3rd parties to optimize their software for the WiiU, rather than Nintendo's job to "optimize" its hardware for 3rd party engines (whatever that would mean).

And that is common knowledge - there was just nobody to point that out -

Optimizing is done via "assembly injects" or bypassing or writting a

The point of bypassing the API is that you can write your own assembly code and overwrite the fixed instructions - it's a way of making your own code where something in the API was not provided.
A simple example is to imagine the API like a dictionary - it won't have all the words in the existance - the developer can put in new words in and "meaning/explanations"

But you can't do that on the PC - drivery are proprietary, DirectX is proprietary ... developers cannot edit them, nor bypass them. They are bound to whatever the API has and what the drivers support.

So if you have tesselation on the PC GPU and API, driver doesn't support it - you can't have it - but on consoles you can pretty much write your own driver essentially - and that's why developers are able to suck out everything the HARDWARE has because they have the access to the lowest level to the hardware. Consoles are closed systems that's why this is allowed - PCs are open, and everyone tends to secure their property and copyright.

You can check one of the Carmacks interviews - He talks about APIs/drivers in first half of the video

Jump to 2:37 to hear about GPU Race question - and drivers. But he talks about the overhead issues throughout the whole interview.


You can see what low-level access can do - when used properly the hardware can be much faster than you would ever imagine. (NGP = Vita)
https://twitter.com/...655938016837632
He talks about the Vita hardware in the below E3 2011 interview - when talking about nintendo - he says how easy it is to port big PS3 titles to Vita with only simple GFX cuts.


Here is an E3 2011 interview where John Carmack talks about WiiU for the first time - good news. If IDTech5 can run why UE4 wouldn't.
http://www.youtube.c...dsEtr-TY#t=242s
Will auto-jump to the timeline where the nintendo talk begins.

Here is a older interview where Carmack says how easy is to make up-scale ports (like Darksiders 2) but actually wanting the most of the system by building on it from ground up is a massive engeneering process.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gshkNXDFz6c#t=424s
So ... it's quite obvious that most 3rd party WiiU games will be upscaled ports and mid-generational bolt ons. WiiU will be capable of much more.


The moto of this is - hardware is worthless without software. And hardware is much more powerful than software, it struggles to keep up with the technology, because software

Linux - on the other hand, has very high-quality code. There's a story about Wine, the Windows emulator on Linux, a developer said that they were forced to write buggy code just so the windows games would work.

So there you have it why PC games are so buggy - Windows is buggy to begin with, then the drivers, the closed off APIs ...

I think I get it. So if third-party developers use Nintedo's API(tools),which Nintendo is now letting developers use for free, instead of a UE3 engine, then games will turn out alot better; and no matter what engine is used, being Nintendo or third party, if the developers lack the skills to fully utilize these API's then the games will turn out to be a reflection of the level of API knowledge of the developer. Is that what your saying?

No and Yes ... i will quote the parts where you're correct and where not. Sorry if my long post was confusing - but i did not mention the news and the deal about free middleware - i thought everyone  following supposed to know that. I am personally not been following closely for a year this stuff - but i have spent enormous amounts of time researching everything that happend via all those neogaf threads starting with march of this year - reading stuff from beginning - i just had timeout in holidays so i pretty much don't do anything else on the internet except wiiu - don't even play anything. So i pretty much all the stuff covered.

If youd ask me 2 months ago i wouldn't have an idea. It's like a few weeks only that i covered enouhg information that i finally know everything what happend in past and now can follow present events.


Nollog summarized it correctly very quickly for you.

Console Manufacturers like Nintendo do not SELL OR LICENSE any of their engines or tools (API and SDK is NOT middleware). Unreal Engine 3 is NOT nintendo's propery. It is EPIC Games property.

People seem to think that UE3 is the only engine in the world. It's like all the cars and vehicles in the worlds would run on the same exact motor from Honda or something.

I think I get it. So if third-party developers use Nintedo's API(tools),which Nintendo is now letting developers use for free, instead of a UE3 engine, then games will turn out alot better; and no matter what engine is used, being Nintendo or third party, if the developers lack the skills to fully utilize these API's then the games will turn out to be a reflection of the level of API knowledge of the developer. Is that what your saying?

RED = That is very wrong - Nintendo does not produce these middlewares (physics engines, codebase, static analysis tools) - They provide the SDK with the customized openGL low-level API.

BLUE = the term "will" denotes 100% future certanity, the term "can" should be used here, because you can see it depends on how much effort you put into it and your programming skills.

GREEN = Correct - it also true if the developer even knows how to program good so he can bypass the API and write customized code - this is optimization - and it's hard! API is used for the purpose of making it easier/faster, but with that, there are limitations what API can do - consoels have the advantage of not having to rely on an API - while PCs do not have that luxury currently, the biggest reason why PC games are so buggy, slow, inefficient.

RED UNDERLINED: - This is so wrong ... Unreal Engine 3 is a 3rd-party engine in this case - it has nothing to do with nintendo nor anyone else than EPIC GAMES. Unreal Engine 3 is licensed by EPIC to other developers who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for being able to use and modify it for their own games. It doesn't matter to the hardware how many games use UE3 engines - it's not bound to one particular engine (that would be stupid).  Also the whole statement context is wrong, the engine is not API. There are several completely different things here.

FREE MIDDLEWARE: This is a business deal with the several middleware companies and nintendo. A developer that doesn't have skills to create his own tools, or he doesn't have the money, resources, time ... he can invest and buy a middleware program that will help him create his game. He normally goes to a company and buys the software he needs for whatever particular platforum as long as the middleware supports that platforms he plans to release a game.
Nintendo went directly to those companies that 3rd party developers would, and obviously paid them so they would get licenses, and then nintendo would give these licenses to 3rd party developers for free. This is a way of how they want to attract new developers to the new system - nintendo is investing in 3rd party support as we speak - this is one of the ways - but nintendo has to pay money to middleware companies - the terms of these contracts are confidential and not released for public.
Now this deal is only for nintendo consoles - if you want to make a game for WiiU - you get free middleware - but you won't get these if you don't develop your games on nintendo console - so if you want to release the game for PS360 then you would have to buy the middleware your self with your own money(example, other console manufacturers might have other deals)

For example Microsoft provides /analyze (static analysis tools) to Xbox 360 developers FOR FREE! But if you want the same tools on the PC - you'd have to pay 10.000$ bucks for it. (this is a way of making X360 software less buggy cause the general public blames microsoft for crappy X360 games, but nobody blames microsoft for any crappy PC games)

HAVOK PRESS RELEASE: http://www.havok.com...wiiU-developers
AUTODESK PRESS RELEASE: http://investors.aut...9438&highlight=


It doesn't matter how good of developer you are when it comes to the PC - if drivers are crap the game is crap, there is NOTHING the developer can do to fix it, only the hardware manufacturer who owns it's rights to proprietary drivers can fix it. A very very good example of that is the release of the game RAGE by Id Software which was a total "clusterWii" said JC.

Rage game was a very high-quality peice of software - very stable and bug-less. The crap OpenGL drivers released by AMD were the sole cause of the game's erratic behavior and countless performance issues as well as crashes.
IdTech5 engines from id software does not use DirectX - it uses OpenGL - AMD/ATI opengl have always been bad.

John Carmack the main programmer engineer at Id Software who is the Einstein of programming, was not able to do a thing, he just provided AMD the information about the issues, and he could only make hacks in the game to WORKAROUND the driver issues - but he can't fix the drivers directly - he can only sit and wait for AMD Catalyst Driver team to fix the issues. So if this was on consoles - Carmack could go in and fix it him self - And Carmack is pushing the PC industry to allow developers to make low-level stuff. Heck that's why you don't have these issues on the consoles, console games don't run that good just because "their hardware is the same" - if consoles would have the same driver issues as PC they would have the same problems.