Editorial On "Is Wii Next-Gen?" (answer: no)

[darkblu]

Are you serious?

- SSX

i'm assuming you bought a ps2 for it couse otherwise i don't know anybody else for whom this title was a system seller. and i know skaters & snowboarders.

- Panzer Dragoon

ok, one potential launch-window system seller. you get a point.

- Halo

you did not read my post carefully, did you - in case you missed the subject, we're talking of launch window system sellers demonstrating great use of the tech advantage (at the time) of the respective console, and which titles were not (a) sequels, (b) ports, or (c) rehashes.

halo's a port.

- Soul Calibre

a sequel. and it's 'calibur' btw.

- Lumines

again, a system seller? you know somebody who bought a psp for it (instead of for the other two great launch-window titles, RR and wipeout, alas sequels)? yes, it's a fun game (my wife played it for about a month) but a system seller is rather stretching it.

- Sonic Adventure

largely a rehash of sonic X-treme that finally found the light of day. it was good though, but hardly an original game (i.e. a game that would be conceptualized, designed and implemented relying on the tech advantages for this respective console).

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Calling Halo a port is problematic, but even if it is, I don't understand your criterias, who cares if the impressive titles were ports, rehashes or sequels, if they were impressive?

 

[Oblivion]

The thing that pisses me off about Nintendo the most is that they tried to do everything in their power to make sure the Wii was as weak as possible. Nintendo purposely made the Wii case as small as it was. Hell, if the thing were bigger we could have had an improvement in graphics (heat dissipation and all that).

Course, this is all Nintendo's fault really. The Gamecube was a fricken disaster, far worse than N64 I think. At least with the N64, even though there weren't many games, but the ones that came out were so earth shattering that the industry couldn't help but take notice, like Mario 64, Zelda: OoT and Goldeneye came about. And they sold shitloads and shitloads. Did anyone give a shit about Mario Sunshine or Wind Waker? Metroid Prime being the successor to GE? Not even close. Not to mention killing several franchises altogether like Donkey Kong and Starfox. Nintendo made money on the N64, but not nearly as much on the GC. So I guess they assumed that if they're going to keep getting lesser software sales, there's no point in going for more expensive game development.

 

[fearsomepirate]

like Donkey Kong

Stop talking and go play Jungle Beat and then compare it to DK64.

 

[Oblivion]

Stop talking and go play Jungle Beat and then compare it to DK64.

Great game, but too short. :/

 

[darkblu]

The point is that you said that you start really using a brand-new PC card right away, as opposed to consoles which take time to mature.

exactly, what's so strange about that? i use my desktops much less for games and way more for other things.

There were plenty of PS2/Cube/N64/Xbox/SNES/whatever launch titles that utilized the hardware as much as anything that was available when the Voodoo2/GF4Ti/GF2/Radeon 9700/whatever came out.

and since the overwhelming majority of those launch titles would be sequels, ports and rehashes, they could have been made in a (similar) form on any other likely-powered platform of the day (the usual candidate being the pc) and hence, make the 'ohhhh, da tech advantage!!!1111!!' stance at launch rather a matter of faith. as a dev, you either spend your development effort on an original launch-window title, or you spend your effort on polishing and rehashing something old for a launch-window title -- the former does not leave you much room for proving tech superiority, the latter does so but at the expense of originality. the bloody rare exception to that are so few and far between that it really does not make sense when one compares that against the 'next-gen' frenzy that usually obsesses console afficionados around the time a new hw platform is released.

And Halo launched on Xbox. I mean, it started as an RTS or something on Mac, but it most certainly was quite new at the time and most certainly was not a PC port.

no offense, but i suspect that at the time i was discussing halo details on gamedev.net lists you most likely did not have as much as a clue about the existence of such a title. not that the scoop on the history of the title is a freakin govenrment secret either.

IIRC, it did some fun per-pixel stuff that few if any PC games were doing in 2001. Probably the best-looking game on PC that came out during the same timeframe as Xbox was RTCW, but that was a DX7 game.

i don't care how few pc titles were doing that back then - it was doable and whoever cared to do it - did it. how does that translate to a 'technological' advantage for you? for what's it's worth, it's way more of an 'exclusivity' advantage than anything else. look at CoD3 on the 360 and the same on a gamer's PC - where do you see a great 'technological advatage' there?

I can't believe you're comparing RS on PC to Rogue Leader on Gamecube. RS is a port of an N64 game with higher screen resolution. RL is still one of the best-looking titles of the last gen. The two games aren't even close, so I'm not going to take that seriously.

that changes nothing in the fact the two games played practically indentically, and the pc version had a nice picture quality closer to the cube title (unless n64 had proper trilinear and could afford the tex resolutions typical for the pc league, or in general had the pc mem resources to boot with). yes, the cube's version was the next iteration of the project, on top-of-the-line hw for the time - i looked best and had quite some icing on the cake. but he cake's crest was practically the same.

 

[pc999]

Hell, if the thing were bigger we could have had an improvement in graphics (heat dissipation and all that).

Did you ever saw a MacMini (or a name close to that), it is ~the same size of a Wii but it does have a Core Duo (that beat a P4D) and a X1600 and up to 512Mgs total (IIRC) and that is a lot for a console (specially at 480p).

The low performance is for other reasons not size, not BC, not inability to do a more powefull thing. My take on the reasons is price/cost of both HW/SW and a lot of R&D based on no traditional gamers (which make the low power, easy of use, "instant" updates...) that could still make a good bet on the traditional gamers set (like we see there is many gamers interested and many no gamers too).

 

[Reznor007]

that changes nothing in the fact the two games played practically indentically, and the pc version had a nice picture quality closer to the cube title (unless n64 had proper trilinear and could afford the tex resolutions typical for the pc league, or in general had the pc mem resources to boot with). yes, the cube's version was the next iteration of the project, on top-of-the-line hw for the time - i looked best and had quite some icing on the cake. but he cake's crest was practically the same.

The PC version used the exact same models and textures as the N64 version. The biggest picture difference is most likely a 800x600/1024x768 VGA display compared to a 512x384(or so...the game used a higher than normal res on N64) res on a RF/composite NTSC TV.

 

[theafu]

Odd nintendo builds two good 3d systems, one hard to program for, and well outside of a few developers no one takes advantage of it. Nintendo opts to do their own thing since they are basically they only ones taking advantage of power and everyone gets pissed with them. Sorry this situation is both developers and nintendo's fault, but hey I go with nintendo in this case. Why bother when developers don't as it's still the case with Wii.

 

[Oblivion]

Did you ever saw a MacMini (or a name close to that), it is ~the same size of a Wii but it does have a Core Duo (that beat a P4D) and a X1600 and up to 512Mgs total (IIRC) and that is a lot for a console (specially at 480p).

Except what's the glaring difference between a Mac Mini and a Wii? Wii doesn't cost thousands of dollars.

 

[Colourless]

And neither does the Mac Mini

 

[Oblivion]

And neither does the Mac Mini

Okay, maybe not thousands, but it does cost substantially more than the Wii.

 

[Diamond.G]

Except what's the glaring difference between a Mac Mini and a Wii? Wii doesn't cost thousands of dollars.

FYI neither does the Mac Mini

Damn, Colourless beat me to it...

 

[pc999]

Except what's the glaring difference between a Mac Mini and a Wii? Wii doesn't cost thousands of dollars.

And a PC with 360/PS3 specs, did they cost 400/600$?

Anyway I talked about the size .

 

[Oblivion]

And a PC with 360/PS3 specs, did they cost 400/600$?

Anyway I talked about the size .

Yeah, I know what you meant. But let me clarify. My point was, the smaller you make the hardware, the more it's going to cost you if you want to make it powerful. So while it certainly is possible to have a monster under the hood like the Mac Mini, Nintendo would be losing a lot of money if they made it that powerful with such a small size.

Hope that was clear.

 

[fearsomepirate]

exactly, what's so strange about that?

The fact that it's not true is pretty strange. If you bought a Geforce 256 AV at launch, what was that fancy T&L engine being used for? Pretty much nothing. If you bought a GF3Ti at launch, what were those fancy pixel and vertex shaders being used for? Nothing. There weren't any games that used them.

don't care how few pc titles were doing that back then - it was doable

The question isn't "was it doable?" Of course it was doable. Doom 3 actually runs pretty well on a GF4Ti. You said it was being done, which isn't true. When a new hardware paradigm of PC hardware comes out, it's generally a year or so before we see software that really uses the hardware. Your initial claim was that what differentiates the PC space is that the software that really pushes the new hardware is immediately available.

This is not about whether or not consoles have a technological advantage. It's about your silly claim that PC developers are quicker to fully utilize their hardware than console developers.

look at CoD3 on the 360 and the same on a gamer's PC

And COD3 is basically a DX9 game, judging by the shots and vids. How long has PC DX9 hardware been out? Is it really 4 years now? I guess it's using SM3.0, judging by the way HDR is in everything now, so that's only what, 2 years old? But it's nice to see that DX9 software development is finally maturing, because it sure wasn't anything to crow about in 2002.

but i suspect that at the time i was discussing halo details

Discussing the details of an unreleased game and having played it are pretty different, no? You claimed tha when it came out, you'd already seen that kind of thing in so many games to the point where it wasn't impressive anymore. Now "seen" means "discussed on a message board?"

that changes nothing in the fact the two games played practically indentically

This isn't about gameplay. This is about your unfounded claim that PC software development doesn't need time to mature into the graphics hardware the way console development does. And if you're using RS vs RL as an example, you really need to refresh your memory by taking a look at some screenshots and vids or something.
Rogue Leader:
http://cubemedia.ign.com/media/space2k1/StarWars002.jpg
Rogue Squadron:
http://pcmedia.ign.com/media/reviews/image/roguesquadron016.jpg
I don't think the extra screen resolution (and yes, I realize the Gamecube doesn't have as much AA) makes up the difference.

 

[pc999]

Yeah, I know what you meant. But let me clarify. My point was, the smaller you make the hardware, the more it's going to cost you if you want to make it powerful. So while it certainly is possible to have a monster under the hood like the Mac Mini, Nintendo would be losing a lot of money if they made it that powerful with such a small size.

Hope that was clear.

Actually it seems to me that to get a desktop with the same specs it would cost more or less the same. But it may be some advantage they have to produce the MacMini (it seems much less complex than a PC, althought that is an advantage of this kind of products).

Althought that is definitely true but beyond some point, before that I am not so sure.

I still think it losses to much, look at (specialy) the AI (and Xenon isnt a great CPU for AI, ie very high latencys, relatively poor branching, in order...) and complexity in GoW that is really a improvement that I want in every new game this is what upsets me and I think many more, is to see to important parts of gaming stagnated in time.

 

[darkblu]

The fact that it's not true is pretty strange. If you bought a Geforce 256 AV at launch, what was that fancy T&L engine being used for? Pretty much nothing. If you bought a GF3Ti at launch, what were those fancy pixel and vertex shaders being used for? Nothing. There weren't any games that used them.

i did not expect i would need to spell it out for you, fearsome, but here you are:

if i bought a gf256 at launch, i, and the many others like me, would find the greatest value in doing R&D on it. same with gf3. same with every new piece of sparkling pc video hw. there'd be a wave of tech demos, new engines/engine enhancements, and new GPGPU tasks or what you could generally call a utility bump caused by the new part. that's what a desktop platform is best at - providing the hw and sw ground for nurturing 'cutting edge' technologies. the fact that you would not see complete products on the market until much later does not give the consoles the 'technical lead' one ounce - consoles do one thing good - they make things easy for productisation, which is often mistaken by laymen for 'technological superiority'. bullshit. ask any of the console developers who've worked on launch-window titles what superiority did the platform offer them compared to their 'last gen' development desktops - you may be surprised. do consoles have the special sauce here and there - of course they do. does that make them significantly tech superior - no, it makes them more efficient at what they do. something which the desktop usually offsets by sheer brute force depreciation in as long as 6 - 12 months later.

i don't give a rats ass if some kid in suburbia could reap the technological benefits from his brand new console 1 or 2 years earlier than the same tech level from his desktop - that does not tell anything about the tech level of his desktop vis-a-vis his console. developers determine what's advanced and what not. publishers and marketing drones determine what that kid sees and what not. capiche?

The question isn't "was it doable?" Of course it was doable. Doom 3 actually runs pretty well on a GF4Ti. You said it was being done, which isn't true.

done. as in R&D done. not shipped to stores shelves done. unless you think doom3 was the first piece of sw on a destop to ever demonstrate convincing per-pixel lighting and normal maps.

When a new hardware paradigm of PC hardware comes out, it's generally a year or so before we see software that really uses the hardware.

you may see the shift in a year. i see the shift in months, sometimes shorter. game productisation for the desktop market is a *bitch*. and technology edge for one of the sides has *nothing* to do with it.

Your initial claim was that what differentiates the PC space is that the software that really pushes the new hardware is immediately available.

no. let me refresh your memory (bolding for emphasis plus ed):

point is, i can immediately put the technology in the pc to good use, with the console i have to wait for it to mature [read: i have to wait for somebody to do something worthwhile with it that would reach me through the stores shelves and with the publisher's blessing]. that's why for me consoles usually start to get interesting only after they've de jure lost whatever tech lead they had had before desktops. but by that time they already have the good titles and the producers' dedication for original, worthwhile games (due to mastery of the hw, large user base, or whatever). in this regard the wii is an exception for me - yes, there's technology in it that will take maturing (the control scheme) but i can already get good return of my consumer's money for it at launch. is that as good as a system seller - well, if you want to enjoy the controls, no other platform out there offers that, so yes, it can be a system seller.

This is not about whether or not consoles have a technological advantage. It's about your silly claim that PC developers are quicker to fully utilize their hardware than console developers.

i hope that by now you've realised how silly your interpretation of my words was.

pc devs are not quicker at tech utilisation - they are just as fast, but also they're *way* slower at productisation. and that's their 'technological disadvantage' in the public eyes.

And COD3 is basically a DX9 game, judging by the shots and vids. How long has PC DX9 hardware been out? Is it really 4 years now? I guess it's using SM3.0, judging by the way HDR is in everything now, so that's only what, 2 years old? But it's nice to see that DX9 software development is finally maturing, because it sure wasn't anything to crow about in 2002.

and i somehow thought here that the 'technological superiority' of the 360 would allow for some conspicuous quantitive advancements over the obsolete desktop tech. stupid me.

Discussing the details of an unreleased game and having played it are pretty different, no? You claimed tha when it came out, you'd already seen that kind of thing in so many games to the point where it wasn't impressive anymore. Now "seen" means "discussed on a message board?"

jeez, fearsome, what's up with you tonight? where did i say i had seen it 'in so many games'? care to quote me? i was saying i had a general clue what platforms halo as a project passed through - that in response to your definitive statements on halo's origins.

This isn't about gameplay. This is about your unfounded claim that PC software development doesn't need time to mature into the graphics hardware the way console development does.

maybe because pc software development may not need to mature the same way - you can run folding@home on your sm3 destop gpu as we speak - it'd be curious to know what can you do with a non-mature xenos at the same time.

And if you're using RS vs RL as an example, you really need to refresh your memory by taking a look at some screenshots and vids or something.

i just took your advice and refreshed my mem and i stand corrected on the RS vs RL parallel - my memories of RS using higher quality textures on the pc seem false, it must have been some other SW game taking place in tatuine landscape that i recall. my bad. the gameplay experience comments, though, do stand.

 

[swaaye]

I keep saying this, but for some reason it's just overwhelmingly fascinating to me. I wonder why N couldn't have gone with something like an off-the-shelf RV410 (X700) or RV530 (X1600). Those chips are used in notebooks and sure can use very little power. They vastly outclass the old Cube hardware in both features and speed (and thus probably the Wii too). There also would be no R&D cost to bear. And DirectX 9 hardware has been known by most devs for years.

Sure it might not be optimal hardware-wise, not being custom tailored for the console, but it would be better than what they've done IMO.

There would be no backwards compatibility with the limited Cube library cuz emulation would be out of the question performance-wise. However, I honestly doubt that the majority of people give a damn about that. I don't. If you really must play some Cube game, you probably own it already lol. And if you don't, well, Cubes are going to be really, really cheap soon enough at your local used-game-stuff stores.

IMO this machine would be so much more fascinating with a little RV410 or RV530 chugging away in there. I was actually expecting something along those lines from the start. It only made sense. They didn't want to bother with the extreme edge of performance, but a older design redeveloped would be perfect I thought. I didn't really imagine them slightly modifying DX8-ish 1999-2000 Cube tech.

 

[INKster]

I keep saying this, but for some reason it's just overwhelmingly fascinating to me. I wonder why N couldn't have gone with something like an off-the-shelf RV410 (X700) or RV530 (X1600). Those chips are used in notebooks and sure can use very little power. They vastly outclass the old Cube hardware in both features and speed (and thus probably the Wii too). There also would be no R&D cost to bear. And DirectX 9 hardware has been known by most devs for years.

The reason is simple:
You'd end up paying through the nose for each those chips, since ATI would never let go of their IP when the product is already on the market.

That's why MS was stuck on the deal with Nvidia for the original Xbox.
It was Nvidia who contracted TSMC to make the chips, just like they do for any other product (and they don't give their partners the IP for a Geforce, right ? Otherwise, who would stop Asus from quietly "sharing" it with the competition ?).


You make a lot more money by supplying customers with ready-made components than by licensing specific IP to third parties and let them choose their fab(s), how large is a specific batch of chips, what is your marging gonna be when a die shrink is needed, etc, etc.