I think they wanted to avoid Wii2 as even though it would have had good multiplayer connotations the casual gamer may see it as being a lesser system to the PS3/4 for example. I'm mostly worried about the fact that most third party games are ports. I mean I own an Xbox 360 so why am I going to buy a new system for Batman, Cod, AC3 etc when I could get it without forking out 300 quid on a new console. I think they really need next gen support from third parties I.e the franchises but new games for a new console. Even though its unlikely to happen. They really could have done with a 3d Mario or Zelda at launch to really kick start the hype. The release games seem ok but are available on other consoles or the usual "casual" games on the whole
Gaming Wii-U
- Thread starter AVARiCE
- Start date
Yeah i'm really unexcited about this. If they had a brand new AAA Zelda, Metroid or Mario at launch I might maybe consider it, but I already have a 360, ps3 and a Wii. Cannot see the pull to get a nextgen console that is not nextgen.
It's extremely dumb, half of my friends think a 3DS is a DS with an additional mode that allows you to play enhanced games in 3D and Wii-U will probably be considered as a Wii with an additional tablet pad. Sony have had it spot on with PlayStation naming, Nintendo is different because their consoles aren't successors to the previous ones (at least recently with Wii and Wii-U, GameCube was a new N64 obviously) but they don't need to mess it up like that. I still think that DS should have been called Game Boy.
They won't draw people with those games, luckily enough the Nintendo brand is so strong that it's pretty much guaranteed Wii-U will sell out. I see no value in it at all but will probably buy it when they drop the price to €200.
Is it a hardware monstrosity or not?Well it's officially got Weaste's seal of disapproval, which of course means it's going to be brilliant and sell shedloads
I wouldn't go that far, no. However it seems they have 'Snes'd' the cpu
Though I've heard it's not as big an issue as some are making out, more like it's taking more time than everyone thought to get to grips with it, and like the PS3, some people are mouthing a bit too early. However, whether or not that's a good thing is another debate, but the short answer is no. If you are going to make an economical system, you need to make as much of the power accessable from the off to compensate, or publishers will be crawling up the devs backs wondering what's taking so long for simple ports. And you might have a dislike of api, but the fact is the games industry is more cutthroat than ever and the pressure is always on the technical side, more so than any other industry, and I can tell you it goes a lot more smoothly when Nintendo used to set you up straight away so you didn't have to reinvent the wheel (the tevs were obviously a difference, but you had the strongest support from the off, something to this day Sony still are shit at). Now they've gone the Sony path (though obviously with managing the bottlenecks, not Sony's technical brilliance) they are opening themselves up for a world of hurt.
That all being said, it is a games machine and that's what drives the market. This will sell well, and you can't argue at the pricing point it should shift when the big hitters really come. But that's when I'll get one, certainly not when you have to install a huge fecking update out of the box (and you know full well how I detest that!).
What was wrong with the SNES?
I've already said that it depends on what IBM/AMD have done with that eDRAM, and it depends heavily on that. You can't compare it to the PS3, this is not using an in order execution CPU with 8 satellite mini processors using a different ISA with no access to the CPU RAM and need to DMA stuff into local stores 256KB in size and out again 8double buffering most of it to keep down latency). Really, don't go there. feck though, 13GB/s main RAM, its half of what Cell has for the 256MB XDR alone. As I said, this thing looks to me like a more modern, smaller, cooler, more power efficient XB360S. I think that's the target they have aimed for. It was always obvious due to the size of the box.I wouldn't go that far, no. However it seems they have 'Snes'd' the cpu
Though I've heard it's not as big an issue as some are making out, more like it's taking more time than everyone thought to get to grips with it, and like the PS3, some people are mouthing a bit too early. However, whether or not that's a good thing is another debate, but the short answer is no. If you are going to make an economical system, you need to make as much of the power accessable from the off to compensate, or publishers will be crawling up the devs backs wondering what's taking so long for simple ports. And you might have a dislike of api, but the fact is the games industry is more cutthroat than ever and the pressure is always on the technical side, more so than any other industry, and I can tell you it goes a lot more smoothly when Nintendo used to set you up straight away so you didn't have to reinvent the wheel (the tevs were obviously a difference, but you had the strongest support from the off, something to this day Sony still are shit at). Now they've gone the Sony path (though obviously with managing the bottlenecks, not Sony's technical brilliance) they are opening themselves up for a world of hurt.
That all being said, it is a games machine and that's what drives the market. This will sell well, and you can't argue at the pricing point it should shift when the big hitters really come. But that's when I'll get one, certainly not when you have to install a huge fecking update out of the box (and you know full well how I detest that!).
Shit CPU. As it was it might have blown the Genesis out of the water graphically, but it was like one of those dumb genius' that can't tie their own shoelaces, but can paint a work of art.
It remains to be seen what the Wii-U gpu can really bring to the party when fully got to grips with, but I doubt it'll save it as much as the rest of the snes pulled that together.
Its CPU was shit, it relied far more on its custom hardware.
The problem here is that SNES was competing with Megadrive/Genesis. WiiU seems to be trying to compete with XB360 and PS3. Many comment I have read state that it's having trouble running ports from those two systems. When the hell in the past has a supposed "next-generation" system had trouble running software on a machine released 7 years earlier than it? WTF is going to happen when PS4/XB720 arrive?
You should re-read my post, I never once compared it to the PS3 technically. It couldn't be more different if it was made of sand and ice cream.
It shouldn't be that difficult to develop for on the GPU end (depending what the hell is attached to the eDRAM and how it's configured) as developers have plenty of experience of that with XB360, and if a decent size should remove the need to tile. If it's also there however to be used by the CPU as a cache, then developers yes might have to deal with timings on fetches etc. I don't know, I'm waiting for that part. If it is 32MB (triple XB360) it's really not a lot either.
We know what's going to happen.
Just a point though, from what I'm hearing it's not the power that is the issue, it's that it's more work than people thought to port. The slow cpu/shit ram has made people have to rethink and that's not good for cost.
The Metro game won't be coming to it (but that's more because THQ are in shit) because of this and I suspect more developers will wait until it sells, and even then put minimal teams on it. About like another certain system we can both mention.
Now you know I'm 100% against Sony's shit of releasing a super computer that ultimately loses money and forces redundancies of good people, but I'm also against Nintendo not sticking another tenner on this console and at least giving access to memory that wouldn't look out of place on my old dell I'm currently using as a file store.
Nintendo has always been more interested in innovative uses of hardware and software rather than relying on pure power. To a degree it works as can be shown by the number of amazing games Nintendo as a first party developer has produced. The problem is that a lot of key third party developers will only develop on platforms that can make their games look good. Take for example Rockstar who have hesitated putting GTA games on a Nintendo home console. Nintendo needs these developers to put the effort into creating innovative gameplay.
The problems in the past have been Nintendo not understanding the needs of developers and developers not having an alligned ethos with Nintendo
The problems in the past have been Nintendo not understanding the needs of developers and developers not having an alligned ethos with Nintendo
It was superior to mega drive in every way for me.
That's not quite true, most developers love Nintendo machines and the community feel of developers. Since the early days of the N64, Nintendo have always brought to the table the confidence that you can sit down with one of their machines and get the best out of them so early, that's why the Wii wasn't really a problem.
What they've done this time though, is what they did with the Snes, cut corners and made developers work for the power. Now that's fine when you can outperform the rivals graphically, but these days when you have physics and A.I to worry about, it becomes a completely different story.
In fact, if it wasn't for the fact the field of A.I has regressed this gen and rag doll physics isn't the big thing it used to be, Nintendo would be fecked here for ports because the money and most importantly time just isn't there for developers (the Cpu and memory certainly isn't). That has always hindered Sony with their 'super duper mega futuristic processors', but the machines have always had the raw power to match competitors. This Wii-U doesn't rely on super graphics, sure, but to suck for simple ports? That's really not good.
Apart from slowing down to a crawl when trying to draw more than a handful of sprites on the screen, I agree.
For one reason of another I don't feel most companies give their all with Nintendo machines. The Wii had largely watered down versions of COD, FIFA, and none of the likes of Elder Scrolls, mass effect, Battlefield etc etc. These problems have existed since N64 in my opinion. Yes they are getting more third party support but they are basic ports of current gen games (in some cases even worse than the originals). I thought the next gen was about making a step forward? The WiiU seems to be largely made up of "this gen" games so far, which is obviously very disappointing. I don't want to spend all that money on a console when I can buy equivalent games for my Xbox. Yes the dual screen thing is cool but it currently doesn't do enough in terms of software for me to buy one
That's nothing to do with Nintendo though, that's what happens when the publishers take over nearly all the devs and start following the Hollywood model.
These dev teams have ridiculously large teams these days (and without any need for that many people too, it's just piss poor management) and to do specific Wii versions of games costs money, it's easier to strip games and that's what the money men demand. The N64 only suffered early on because of the memory limits of cartridges and the way the system was set up, much different to anything else at the time.
Well it kind of does have something to do with Nintendo.
They realised that developers preferred the extra memory of the PS2 over N64 but still suffered with third party issues with the GameCube. Then with the Wii they tried to differentiate with the motion control technology. They sold tons of units of hardware but struggled with software particularly third parties who as you say basically stripped their franchises to the basics and added waggle control on most occasions. They now make it hard for developers again by making them add dual screen features. Basically ports of games with added feature. Like you say developers don't want the costs of producing a whole new "next gen" version of games (assuming WiiU is capable). It's Nintendo who need to try and meet the aims of third party developers as well as themselves
Yeah, but now you are talking two different aspects. Developers always loved Nintendo machines, and the way they were put together. Even dealing with Nintendo, dispite the strictness, is a pleasure.
Whether or not the money is there for machine specific versions is another matter. Sony, to a degree, suffer similar which is why gthe PS3 hasn't pissed all over the 360.
As for the Gamecube, that was a brilliant machine, but what fecked them over with that was the proprietry discs and that's when the publishers really started to grab the independants and didn't like paying the costs. The machine itself was an absolute dream to work with, even the tev stages (though weird) weren't a problem.
The big problem with the Wii-U is not the power, it's not convincing the publishers it's worth it (because it will sell), it's that it's not even easy to work with from the off, and that is a big spanner.
Whether or not the money is there for machine specific versions is another matter. Sony, to a degree, suffer similar which is why gthe PS3 hasn't pissed all over the 360.
As for the Gamecube, that was a brilliant machine, but what fecked them over with that was the proprietry discs and that's when the publishers really started to grab the independants and didn't like paying the costs. The machine itself was an absolute dream to work with, even the tev stages (though weird) weren't a problem.
The big problem with the Wii-U is not the power, it's not convincing the publishers it's worth it (because it will sell), it's that it's not even easy to work with from the off, and that is a big spanner.
But Nintendo keeps throwing these problems to developers whether its huge licensing fees (Snes and N64), cartridges instead of CD, Gamecubes discs, the fact Wii games need to be developed from scratch or the difficulties with WiiU. Nintendo need to make things easier if they want the support and not throw in these difficulties. I mean have they fixed the online with WiiU?
As I said ,we are talking two different things now and agreeing on most of it.
Developers, until now have had no problem working with Nintendo and their machines, in fact (after not including) the snes, it's been a pleasure. The problem has been with the money men.
Now, the problem is all ways because although you had to do a specific Wii version, it was a breeze from the technical side (though the artists wouldn't agree), but with the Wii-U even simple ports are a problem. Yeah the GPU might push it through shit like CoD and graphic heavy games like Batman, but it's going to be a problem with something like Deus Ex, and as Weaste says, next generation games are going to be a massive problem. As I said, if it wasn't for the fact that the current generation of games are largely dumb, then they'd be having even more problems.
All this being said, the Wii was worth having for the Nintendo games alone, and the Wii-U is obviously a lot cheaper than the new machines will be so no doubt will definitely be worth it when the big games arrive. Think if it as a half generation and it makes a bit more sense.
Of course, Nintendo aside, I fully expect the controller to be largely wasted. Then Sony will ty to copy the wasteage and make it worse somehow
Developers, until now have had no problem working with Nintendo and their machines, in fact (after not including) the snes, it's been a pleasure. The problem has been with the money men.
Now, the problem is all ways because although you had to do a specific Wii version, it was a breeze from the technical side (though the artists wouldn't agree), but with the Wii-U even simple ports are a problem. Yeah the GPU might push it through shit like CoD and graphic heavy games like Batman, but it's going to be a problem with something like Deus Ex, and as Weaste says, next generation games are going to be a massive problem. As I said, if it wasn't for the fact that the current generation of games are largely dumb, then they'd be having even more problems.
All this being said, the Wii was worth having for the Nintendo games alone, and the Wii-U is obviously a lot cheaper than the new machines will be so no doubt will definitely be worth it when the big games arrive. Think if it as a half generation and it makes a bit more sense.
Of course, Nintendo aside, I fully expect the controller to be largely wasted. Then Sony will ty to copy the wasteage and make it worse somehow
ZombiU reviews have picked up. Joystiq gave it a 4.5/5, Destructoid 8/10, and Giantbomb put their review up about an hour ago and gave it 4/5.
At first I thought American based reviewers were just bashing the game that's set in London haha
Honestly, I never expected great reviews other than from places like Official Nintendo Magazine. I'm not even that hyped for the game, I just think that the ZombiU bundle is the most value for money and I'd rather have that game than Nintendo Land. I've only played it briefly at an expo, but I think it'll only be a 7-7.5/10 game at most.
One surprising bit of information I found is that Nintendo is not making a profit on each Wii U console sold. They normally make a profit with their consoles, but not on the Wii U. The transaction only becomes profitable when a player actually purchases a separate piece of software.
Honestly, I never expected great reviews other than from places like Official Nintendo Magazine. I'm not even that hyped for the game, I just think that the ZombiU bundle is the most value for money and I'd rather have that game than Nintendo Land. I've only played it briefly at an expo, but I think it'll only be a 7-7.5/10 game at most.
One surprising bit of information I found is that Nintendo is not making a profit on each Wii U console sold. They normally make a profit with their consoles, but not on the Wii U. The transaction only becomes profitable when a player actually purchases a separate piece of software.
pre-ordered one as a chrissy present for my 9 year old.
I might even have a go before I wrap it up
I might even have a go before I wrap it up
Yeah, but I'm sure it's pretty unlikely that most people wont buy at least one Nintendo game.
They need a Zelda game before I'll consider (and end up) buying it.
Yeah, I know. It's just still surprising on the console in this day and age. If what Weaste says (and it's more like an Xbox360 re-release but upgraded more than usual) then the production cost shouldn't be that high. It's obviously the controller pushing the cost up so much (and more than most people think), so the technology must be a bit better (and thus more costly) than even the would be techno-pros believe.
One of the complaints I've heard was the cost, and there was an outrageous article in the Sun (yeah the Sun.. lol) blasting the asking price. But if Nintendo aren't even making a profit on the hardware then I don't think people can be too bewildered at forking out £300~ especially when in most cases you are getting a game with it anyway!
People just like to moan, and the majority of the population aren't happy until they find something to bitch about. We live in an entire population of women now xD
Yep. I'll buy it once they get a new Zelda or proper 3D Mario.
This is probably most people's view on Nintendo's consoles and those games will definitely make it worth it.
Lucky for me I really like the New Super Mario Bros. games so I'll be playing that for a while. If it wasn't for that game though, I'd be waiting until March and getting my console with Monster Hunter.
Has anyone bought one of these things yet?
No. Didn't get the first one either.
It's a real shame, because as a software house, Nintendo are brilliant.
I was thinking about it 'cause i've got some spare cash burning a hole in my pocket but none of the software is remotely interesting. Might just pick up a Wii since I never owned one and waste my holidays on some of the Nintendo titles.
it's not out in Europe till the 30th...
There's a rumour that they're going to announce a "mini" Wii, just in case you want to wait for that. But I'd recommend getting an original one with the Gamecube compatibility (if you don't already have a GC of course) anyway.
It also depends on how far back you want to go, as Olly said, only the earlier Wii consoles support Gamecube backwards compatibility (but if you don't have any 'cube games and don't plan to buy any then it's pointless of course).
However, if you find yourself wanting some of the Wii U games and don't want to end up buying two consoles, you might as well buy a Wii U instead of a Wii and just buy the Wii games that take your fancy, as the Wii U will support all Wii games and all past controllers (or near enough all of them anyway). There are a lot of classic games on Wii, even if the graphics aren't up to the PS3 or Xbox 360, some of the games still look great and are as good as anything else out there gameplay wise.
Even if you weren't planning on getting a Wii U until two years down the line, by then it'd still mean you've spent more money getting a Wii now and a Wii U then I reckon. While if you have the money going spare now, just buying a Wii U means you have both , and if/when the software selection on Wii U is dire, you can just get some cheap Wii games to keep you busy.
However, if you find yourself wanting some of the Wii U games and don't want to end up buying two consoles, you might as well buy a Wii U instead of a Wii and just buy the Wii games that take your fancy, as the Wii U will support all Wii games and all past controllers (or near enough all of them anyway). There are a lot of classic games on Wii, even if the graphics aren't up to the PS3 or Xbox 360, some of the games still look great and are as good as anything else out there gameplay wise.
Even if you weren't planning on getting a Wii U until two years down the line, by then it'd still mean you've spent more money getting a Wii now and a Wii U then I reckon. While if you have the money going spare now, just buying a Wii U means you have both , and if/when the software selection on Wii U is dire, you can just get some cheap Wii games to keep you busy.