Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
- Status
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I don't think that you are fully comprehending the business and technological reasons why what you're suggesting is pure utter nonsense.
To remove the graphics APIs like DX, removing the layer of abstraction from the HW that allows games to be HW agnostic, would be an incredibly stupid thing to do and would kill PC gaming dead.
Even if Microsoft allowed certain developers to bypass DX and write their own software layer for the latest and greatest GPUs, the fact that such a labourious and resource intensive task would only allow you to speed up your game for a small fraction of your userbase who own a specific card means that it's not worth the time or effort for any developer.
DX makes life easier not just for the consumer who can buy a GPU and use it on any game for the next 5-7 years, it also makes life easier for the game developers as they don't have to unnecessarily waste copious millions of man-hours writing custom API layers that have already been written.
Fundamentally you're not understanding the problem, and are simply quoting Carmack's out-of-context comments as a means to support a 100% flawed perspective.
Anyway, all this talk of DX and Carmack is grossly OT.
Whatever Nintendo did with Wii worked.
They are using a tight business model that is clever. Sony and Microsoft have a solid business model also. Its just nintendo guessed right where gamecube and n64 they guessed wrong.
Nintendo can just release another bargain console slightly more powerful than Xbox360 or PS3 add decent 3d and sell it for $299. PS4/xbox720 may sell for $400+
If only that were true.
Wii didn't introduce a new business model. It was a unique disruptive interface which the entire console was built around that was unseen by any consumer product prior to Wii.
That's the reason they were able to profit so much and why they were able to repackage a gamecube in the box and sell it for $250.
The problem with trying to apply this "business model" going forward is that it is near impossible to come up with something revolutionary every 5-6 years which doesn't involve GPU or CPU advances.
This along with the fact that Microsoft already showcased (and patented) the obvious conclusion to motion gaming killed their roadmap. So yes, it was great that Nintendo thought of this great idea of motion gaming, but they did not reinvest the massive profits back into the company for R&D to make it better and now they are left without a clear path for future growth (or even sustainability).
I said this when Project Natal was unveiled, but it seemed everyone was sure that just because Nintendo had one good disruptive idea with motion gaming that they would surely be able to do it again to compete with ps4/xb720.
So what did they do? A pseudo tablet/console which will revolutionize the way we interact by touchscreens ... er... touchscreens with controls because really who wants to touch a touchscreen ... er umm ... two screens because really looking at one screen is boring, wait scratch that we want to throw that tv image to the tablet at anytime ... and who cares about motion gaming anymore or social gatherings? Who said that's what Wii was built on? 1 player only is the way to go!
And after the unveil, nobody is truly convinced of Nintendo's repeat of success. Check their stock price for the real public consensus on how bright Nintendo's future is.
All of that MESS, just so Nintendo wouldn't have to compete on CPU/GPU tech. It's beyond sad, beyond stubborn and beyond stupid, frankly.
So I hope that Sony and MS aren't sharing this same concept of invest garbage into the hardware and people will still buy it due to accessories.
As we see with Nintendo's stock price, this "business plan" has fail written all over it.
I'm still not so sure about this - I can't find anything definitive on it. Which is not to say that Nintendo didn't say it, just that I can't find it. Any links? The golf concept and multiplayer maze chase games wouldn't be so hot without a tv.
Wuu is fully BC with Wii controllers so hopefully that's not the end of the wagglepointer - something that is in some ways still better than kinect. I guess a lot will depend on what gets packaged as standard.
How do you know their roadmap was motion gaming? As I recall, Miyamoto said in an interview many years ago his future of gaming was basically exactly like the Wii U's concept. They were pushing this concept in the past too, with the GBA link to the Gamecube. This might have been their plan from the beginning. Nintendo has always been full of ideas and concepts, some just can't come to fruition due to tech or prices hindering the way.
Just because you don't seem too keen on the idea of a touchscreen doesn't make it a bad decision or a wrong step. To you, the only right step is throwing a super powerful GPU and CPU in the console and calling it a day...
Well, I suppose my conviction of that comes from the hodge-podge thrown together nature of WiiU.
There is no clear message of what it is and what it offers and why people should buy one.
WiiU is a mess.
WiiU fail is not only obvious to me, but also to the masses that own Nintendo stock.
As for what's the best direction for Nintendo moving forward:
What they should have done was secure Kinect technology for themselves by purchasing Prime Sense years ago.
Having failed to do that, licensing Kinect would have been a decent plan B.
Having failed to do that, plan C would be a partnership with a bigger Company to provide Wii accessories for a future hardware platform. Thus allowing Nintendo to survive by pushing their software and accessories onto hardware that isn't theirs and in return, the platform holder will be receiving more customers than they would have otherwise and so some monetary compensation would be in order.
Having failed all of the above, we are left with WiiU and the likely ejection of Nintendo from the console biz in short order. If they can't lure in traditional console gamers (ie decent nextgen GPU/CPU performance) they will be in trouble as casual gamers won't be jumping in anywhere near as emphatically as with Wii's clear, simple, and revolutionary offering.
I personally think they didn't want to reveal the Wii U yet, but all those leaks forced their hand. It was pretty clear that they weren't ready at e3, and they have even acknowledged this, stating that this e3 would be a complete re-unveil. Nintendo's stock has also been rising lately.
As for your "plans," Nintendo has said themselves that they would not give up buttons or a controller, ala they would never consider using Kinect or full body control. They have also said that if they can't make their own hardware anymore, they wouldn't even be in the video game industry anymore.
Nintendo is fully capable, and the Wii U looks great. Obviously, it will most likely be a tougher sell toward casuals, simply because a lot of them may already have an iPad and could possibly see the Wii U as an unnecessary similar device. Tablets are not something as radical and different as the Wii initially was. But that's where the Nintendo magic comes in, and if they can create that must own-must play software such as a Wii Sports/Wii Fit, they're golden.
As for the hardcores, that is still up in the air. Frankly, today's recent news that UE4 will be for purely next-gen has me slightly worried as I expected it to be completely scalable. Of course, I don't know if Wii U falls in those comments or not, but if the Wii U is powerful enough to run it and can get most multiplats, even if slightly underpowered, coupled with Nintendo's own first party in glorious HD, I don't see why it wouldn't do well. Obviously, they're going to need some other infrastructure, such as good online services, but recent comments seem to suggest that's going well too. At the very least, it could be a good platform for its 1st party and other exclusives, like how Wii was.
And if NextBox and/or PS4 don't go for the typical power-route, Nintendo's position in next-gen will be greatly improved.
Current stock price 11,660. Price in 2007: >70,000
The slight uptick lately is hardly indicative of a resurgence in belief that Nintendo has it all figured out now. But maybe I'm wrong and the slight uptick is word getting out that the WiiU spec has indeed been upgraded to suitably draw interest from traditional console gamers ...
We shall see soon enough.
Again, that pride can hurt a lot more than help. It's not like they have their hands in lots of other profitable ventures to turn to outside of videogames ...
As for Kinect, just because they have full body 3d tracking doesn't mean they couldn't also use a single handed controller at the same time.
I agree on the tablet similarity problem, but disagree on "Nintendo magic". That "magic" brought them how many users to GC? About 20 million or so yes? And that was with hardware superior (and cheaper) to ps2. Now with Japanese Devs even further out of the picture than n64 or GC days, I see that number being at the upper end of what to expect from WiiU.
1st party will likely do ok, but we have no clue if their devs are up to the task as they haven't made the leap to ps3/xb360 level graphics and development which for a lot of devs was not easy. And this from the company that just last year subbed out Metroid ... one of their key franchises.
And this might very well be their saving grace ... the greed and short-sightedness of Sony/MS to replicate the unrepeatable success and profit of Wii.
It would be rather fitting (for Nintendo anyway) if this was how they manage to get through this generation. By inspiring it's two main rivals to achieve the margins and success of Wii by gimping their own advantage and at the same time throwing the entire console industry under the bus while Apple rolls over them ... there's a beautifully tragic Japanese poem in there somewhere.
Gracias
I know it's off topic, but I wanted to respond to Stewox since I don't think anything specifically addressed this misconception. It's not up to the IHVs to provide low level access to their hardware. This is an OS issue so Microsoft controls the driver model. Also a PC is more general purpose than a console which is one reason the driver model works as it does.
SedentaryJourney
Regular
I predict Sony are going to double down and push as much silicon as they can into the PS4. It's clear that Kaz considers regaining leadership in the core market essential to turning around Sony as a whole. Microsoft may be exploring different ideas given the success of Kinect but I doubt they'll want to be significantly behind Sony in technology.
The question is where WiiU will fall in all of this. Is it the lowest common denominator for next gen games, or split off like the Wii was this gen? I'm not sure 2x 360 performance is enough to prevent developers from treating this like a late arriving last gen console.
Blazkowicz
Legend
I'm not sure that opengl 4.0 is even supported on linux, with the slow moving Mesa backend.
especially more problematic are the drivers which might restrict you to opengl 2.x or even 1.x
no that I wouldn't want to see more linux and opengl gaming. I do
I believe Carmack once commented that a viable linux game should have to be supported on nvidia only, on a subset of distros or distro versions.
linux has further problems, if you distribute a binary only game it will only work for a few years then become incompatible.
I believe java would be a solution for real cross-platform gaming. yes, java : it isn't that slow (it failed in the 90s for applets and apps because loading the jwm was too slow), and is used successfully by Minecraft.
TheWretched
Regular
I'm not sure that opengl 4.0 is even supported on linux, with the slow moving Mesa backend.
especially more problematic are the drivers which might restrict you to opengl 2.x or even 1.x
no that I wouldn't want to see more linux and opengl gaming. I do
I believe Carmack once commented that a viable linux game should have to be supported on nvidia only, on a subset of distros or distro versions.
linux has further problems, if you distribute a binary only game it will only work for a few years then become incompatible.
I believe java would be a solution for real cross-platform gaming. yes, java : it isn't that slow (it failed in the 90s for applets and apps because loading the jwm was too slow), and is used successfully by Minecraft.
Fglrx and Nvidia blobs do support 4.2 actually. Mesa 8.0 started support for OGL3.0 late last year/early this year. Gallium3D for R600+ has preliminary support for 3.0, too. That was a big milestone in the recent past, as "we"'ve been stuck with OGL2 for too long.
I've been using a lot of Qt lately, and since I usually try to program platform agnostic, my software runs well on Linux and Windows... though I am able to segfault the fglrx at time (I use some OGL for displaying stuff and somehow it doesn't like what I am doing there). It doesn't necessarily mean Java is the only way. Just look at what Steam does with Mac support, too. Quite a lot of gaming actually went to the Mac in the recent past... and in theory (though I've never done it), making Mac games run on Linux should be quite easy, as the foundation is more or less the same.
It's always the chicken egg problem. With bad drivers, there'll be little to no games on Linux (though I do love the ability to play ALL my HIB games natively there, too), and with no games there's no incentive for the card makers to provide better driverst than what the "CAD industry wants". I do like AMDs effort into open source stuff, though. Could be more, but could also be a LOT less (see Nouveau), so I can live with it.
Or perhaps an App compatible Android virtual machine, or Sony can port PS Suite to Linux
So far it strongly looks like Wii U will be a lot like Wii, but benefit longer from coexisting with 360 and PS3 rather than the Wii trailing 360 by a year.
So far it strongly looks like Wii U will be a lot like Wii, but benefit longer from coexisting with 360 and PS3 rather than the Wii trailing 360 by a year.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
Please be based on at least the RV770 with better tessellation!
- Status
