Fact: Nintendo to release HD console + controllers with built-in screen late 2012

I see the Nintendo stated plans differently, more of a "We know can't do online gaming so we won't bother to throw away money on it, so we'll let each individual game developer and publisher have to create the experience all by themselves." I see it as being an abysmal failure. Yes, it's rather doom and gloom, but that's the way I see it.

The way I see it, they are doing the barebones for online, then let the devs doing the muscle and heavy exercise.

I think it is a interesting option, it will allow some games to have a better/unique online experience, but it risks that many may have a worst one, if the dev cant do such a good job.
 
I see the Nintendo stated plans differently, more of a "We know can't do online gaming so we won't bother to throw away money on it, so we'll let each individual game developer and publisher have to create the experience all by themselves." I see it as being an abysmal failure. Yes, it's rather doom and gloom, but that's the way I see it.

I see your point and to a degree I read that as well in terms of Nintendo almost throwing up their hands and saying "you take care of it"
But I'm not convinced it will be a failure. Who knows what devs will come up with if given the freedom to run with it.
 
Miyamoto on Wii u power from new Gamespot interview http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6320234/e3-2011-miyamoto-speaks-his-mind

Nintendo is an entertainment company. We're very sensitive to pricing because people have generally only a certain amount of their spending that they'll devote to entertainment. And if you're talking about parents buying something for kids, there are certain price points where parents may be willing to or not willing to purchase a certain product.

Nintendo needs the Wii U to be powerful, but also affordable.
But at the same time, you have these technological advances, and you have the needs of being able to take advantage of that technology, and those result in increasing costs and things like that. And so I think that in terms of companies that really look very carefully at what is the best balance between price and possibility in terms of the hardware, Nintendo is the company that's going to probably pay the most attention to striking that right balance.

So when you look at what we're trying to do this time, which is I think maybe to a certain degree somewhat reckless, because we're trying to include this somewhat kind of tablet-like device--this controller with the screen. We're trying to do that by finding the right balance between the CPU and the GPU, the graphics processor, and bringing all of that together with the ability to take advantage of the HD capabilities of the system, and wanting to do the most that we can on that front as well.

We're very sensitive, of course, to trying to do all of this at an appropriate price. So I don't know that we would be able to sit here and say that it's going to necessarily dramatically outperform the systems that are out now. It's part of the balance that we strike in terms of trying to find entertainment that is new and unique.

I think the writing is on the wall, straight from the horses mouth. 320SP's fits perfectly.
 
BTW April+ launch

http://www.eurogamer.pt/videos/zelda-skyward-sword-kid-icarus-e-wii-u

I was hoping it to be able to hit in March. I hope it will be in April and not April+.


Miyamoto on Wii u power from new Gamespot interview http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6320234/e3-2011-miyamoto-speaks-his-mind



I think the writing is on the wall, straight from the horses mouth. 320SP's fits perfectly.

I really like this part.

Nintendo needs the Wii U to be powerful, but also affordable.

That is what I wanted to see some improvement, no dramatically, but at a good price.
 
Yep so it comes down to what devs do to really showcase the system and price point.
Nintendo needs to have at least two strong launch titles that don't overlap with what the 3rd parties are going to do. They have to allow the 3rd parties to have their space in terms of genre. Let the 3rd parties showcase what they do best,and Nintendo showcase what they do best
So let Ubisoft and EA for example have the first and 3rd person action games and Nintendo launch with something unique to them like Pikmin and Mario Galaxy.
 
Yep so it comes down to what devs do to really showcase the system and price point.
Nintendo needs to have at least two strong launch titles that don't overlap with what the 3rd parties are going to do. They have to allow the 3rd parties to have their space in terms of genre. Let the 3rd parties showcase what they do best,and Nintendo showcase what they do best
So let Ubisoft and EA for example have the first and 3rd person action games and Nintendo launch with something unique to them like Pikmin and Mario Galaxy.

I wouldnt do it, I would release it with a strong first party showing (in the first 2 months), at least 3 games that the PS360+Wii owners like and one casual game (bundled?).

That would mean millions of consoles sold very fast, ensuring a bigger and more targeted market for the 3º partys in the xmas season.

Just think that if they had put a Mario with 3DS launch, third partys would have a bigger market right now and potentially sell more games.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldnt do it, I would release it with a strong first party showing (in the first 2 months), at least 3 games that the PS360+Wii owners like and one casual game (bundled?).

That would mean millions of consoles sold very fast, ensuring a bigger and more targeted market for the 3º partys in the xmas season.

Just think that if they had put a Mario with 3DS launch, third partys would have a bigger market right now a potentially sell more games.

They surely need a strong first party at launch. I just wonder how wise it would be for example to put out a game like Metroid Prime (an FPS) that would almost certainly kick the ass and hurt the sales of any other 3rd party offering of the same genre.
Ok say 3 strong first party games,but I would think the strategy of offering something different yet from known franchise would draw in hardcore Nintendo fans while allowing the 3rd parties to do the traditional genres would attract other gamers.
I can't see any Nintendo fan passing up a new Pikmin+Mario Galaxy at launch.
 
They surely need a strong first party at launch. I just wonder how wise it would be for example to put out a game like Metroid Prime (an FPS) that would almost certainly kick the ass and hurt the sales of any other 3rd party offering of the same genre.

That would indeed needed to be coordinated with third partys, wouldnt be a bad way if third partys think that they should let Nintendo pave the way and in then they get the easier walk.

You give the first 2-3 months for Nintendo franchises to sell those 3 games without releasing anything to much competitive (at this time the market is small and may not allow it), but then there is time to Nintendo allow 3ºp to sell their games, not releasing something to big and allow good sales for 3ºp.
 
I see your point and to a degree I read that as well in terms of Nintendo almost throwing up their hands and saying "you take care of it"
But I'm not convinced it will be a failure. Who knows what devs will come up with if given the freedom to run with it.
It'll be a failure IMO. PSN was less 'free and open' than this and it's a clumsy hodgepodge, only improving as the service becomes more unified. Core gamers won't value such a cheap solution, and a lack of proper network gaming will be a serious nail in Wuu's coffin, I reckon.
 
It'll be a failure IMO. PSN was less 'free and open' than this and it's a clumsy hodgepodge, only improving as the service becomes more unified. Core gamers won't value such a cheap solution, and a lack of proper network gaming will be a serious nail in Wuu's coffin, I reckon.

I don't know you could be right,but maybe we should discuss some actual examples of how this could play out before declaring it a failure.

We use terms like like core and casual very easily around here for the sake is expediency in conversation but I think we all know that it's not that simple in terms of what people want from online and how they experience online.
So for example as someone who considers themselves a very avid/core gamer I've never had any need for a unified online experience like XBL. It's never been a selling point nor a put off that PSN is not like it. I've very satisfied with PSN.
Who knows what Nintendo's offering could be. A gamer ID with a shop for demos and DLC?
And then channels from each dev that offers a more robust experience off their offerings?
 
So for example as someone who considers themselves a very avid/core gamer I've never had any need for a unified online experience like XBL. It's never been a selling point nor a put off that PSN is not like it. I've very satisfied with PSN.
All too often I've struggled to get into games on PSN. Voice chat has been very hit-and-miss, and online games have released on PSN with missing features like voice chat, sometimes never getting patched to support. Party dynamics among friend lists, invites, etc. are all a wider service than leaving it in the hands of developers, but are fairly essential for anyone wanting to online game with specific friends instead of random encounters. If you think in terms of games, yes, independence will work. "I want to play COD/FIFA. I'll put in that game and go online with it. Now I'll play." But if you think in terms of a shared experience, it cannot work. "I want to play online with my friends. I'll chat with them about what we'll play. We'll launch into a game and form a party."

Pre-Wii there was talk of a Nintendo service called MarioNET. Who'd have thought in truth Nintendo would abandon any such sentiments? To me, only a gut feeling based on nothing, but I reckon they've looked at the potential risks with online and decided they don't want to be a part of it. Let other people's servers get hacked, and let 3rd parties worry about cheaters. As long as Nintendo can set up a shop and sell stuff, they'll be happy to leave it at that.
 
RV730 would be good for Wii U, because it has more TMUs than Redwood. On 28 or 32 nm, there is no reason why RV730 could not be pushed to 750 MHz so and stay around 25W. It will need plenty of memory and bandwidth to be nicely fed so 1 GDDR5 is a must if Nintendo went the unified memory route.
 
Anyway, what do you guys think of Nintendo's stated plans to allow an open flexible online plan where devs customize the experience? How do see that playing out in real terms?
Would it be like the old PC days where you just accessed all the content and info in game like we are seeing from things like Uplay or maybe an icon or channel on the dashboard from each dev that allows you to access the stuff.
I don't online game so things like unified MS gamertag was never an issue or selling point for me. I just want access to demo's ,DLC, downloadable games.
Something like PSN would be more than enough for me.
And judging by how poorly Nintendo does online themselves,maybe allowing the devs to do it might not be a bad idea.

Decent third-party support means that you need decent online support and Nintendo seems dedicated to actually getting third-party's onto their system now. On top of that, with the way they demonstrated watching movies on the TV while browsing the web on the tablet with everybody in the same living room, it seems that they want to make this a strong multimedia hub.

You put those two things together and at the very least you'll need an intuitive, universal friends list with the ability to send messages, game invites, and video chat to plan with your friends what you want to play and it would also be highly recommended that you have some sort of easy to understand achievements/trophy system since everybody else has that. You'll also need a very smooth marketplace for using netflix/hulu and for other media features. Things like facebook/twitter integration would also be nice obviously.

Honestly it feels like we're getting mixed messages because they say they want to make it bare-bones but with the way they suggest it's a multimedia hub, it sounds like they would need to basically copy everything Xbox Live provides except for the actual servers the multiplayer games are running on.
 
Decent third-party support means that you need decent online support and Nintendo seems dedicated to actually getting third-party's onto their system now. On top of that, with the way they demonstrated watching movies on the TV while browsing the web on the tablet with everybody in the same living room, it seems that they want to make this a strong multimedia hub.

You put those two things together and at the very least you'll need an intuitive, universal friends list with the ability to send messages, game invites, and video chat to plan with your friends what you want to play and it would also be highly recommended that you have some sort of easy to understand achievements/trophy system since everybody else has that. You'll also need a very smooth marketplace for using netflix/hulu and for other media features. Things like facebook/twitter integration would also be nice obviously.

Honestly it feels like we're getting mixed messages because they say they want to make it bare-bones but with the way they suggest it's a multimedia hub, it sounds like they would need to basically copy everything Xbox Live provides except for the actual servers the multiplayer games are running on.

I'm just going by the Reggie interview where he talked online priorities.
He mentioned the importance of having things like Netflix and social media but in terms of game devs they said they all wanted to do different things. I'm not sure either how they
are going to incorporate and integrate everything.
Do devs need support from Nintendo to do online or just a pipe or network connection to the gamer?
I don't know.
 
All too often I've struggled to get into games on PSN. Voice chat has been very hit-and-miss, and online games have released on PSN with missing features like voice chat, sometimes never getting patched to support. Party dynamics among friend lists, invites, etc. are all a wider service than leaving it in the hands of developers, but are fairly essential for anyone wanting to online game with specific friends instead of random encounters. If you think in terms of games, yes, independence will work. "I want to play COD/FIFA. I'll put in that game and go online with it. Now I'll play." But if you think in terms of a shared experience, it cannot work. "I want to play online with my friends. I'll chat with them about what we'll play. We'll launch into a game and form a party."

Pre-Wii there was talk of a Nintendo service called MarioNET. Who'd have thought in truth Nintendo would abandon any such sentiments? To me, only a gut feeling based on nothing, but I reckon they've looked at the potential risks with online and decided they don't want to be a part of it. Let other people's servers get hacked, and let 3rd parties worry about cheaters. As long as Nintendo can set up a shop and sell stuff, they'll be happy to leave it at that.

Voice chat should be easy to implement if WiiU has enough memory. IMHO, the basic online framework Nintendo needs to work on is probably a baseline party management subsystem.

If they want, they can let the developers do the actual implementations themselves. People like Steam, EA, the MMO folks, plus upcoming FaceBook gaming companies will have very strong idea how they want their online games to work.
 
I really hope the final version of Wii U's custom Radeon GPU has at least twice the stream processors as Xbox 360's Xenos. Now Xenos has 48 shader ALUs (i forget the terminology) but I've read that is equal to something like 240 of the more modern stream processors in current/last gen Radeon GPUs. Someone please clear that up. I also really really hope Wii U's GPU has 16 ROPs, not 8 like Xenos and RSX have. This will of course be very important to fillrate for HD resolutions, especially 1080p. No more sub-HD resolutions please. It'll also be important for framerates too, of course. Don't want to see anymore games with sub-30fps framerates. Would be nice if all adventure, RPGs, were locked at 30, while all action, FPS, sports, racing and other fast-paced games were locked at 60. I'm crossing my fingers that Battlefield 3 on Wii U is 60fps, although I do expect 30fps since even the PC version at E3 was 30fps (i think).
 
Miyamoto seemed to stress price more than power in that interview I posted, so it almost hints at $299 to me. Which would be very nice.
 
If they want, they can let the developers do the actual implementations themselves.

Yikes I hope not, then you end up with psn and all the issues Shifty described. Better to force a complete feature set then you get it all working seamlessly across all games which nowadays is what people want. I'm a big stickler going forwards on the quality of the software experience, and a psn type experience simply won't cut it for next gen. Nintendo needs to partner with someone to help them out to build and support their new online, and then just copy the XBLive feature set verbatim. Nintendo won't be competing on hardware so their software experience, online included, needs to be a step forwards from XBlive, not a step back. If they leave it all up to individual developers then they are dead online before they even started.
 
Pre-Wii there was talk of a Nintendo service called MarioNET.

In July 2000, just before Dolphin was revealed as GameCube at Space World 2000 that August, there was talk/rumor of the final name being "Star Cube" and Nintendo's online service/network being called "Star Road". It turned out to be rumor & speculation, but it was pretty interesting at the time, before it was debunked.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2606006/star-cube-name-seemingly-confirmed
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/4801
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/faq/1749
 
I really hope the final version of Wii U's custom Radeon GPU has at least twice the stream processors as Xbox 360's Xenos. Now Xenos has 48 shader ALUs (i forget the terminology) but I've read that is equal to something like 240 of the more modern stream processors in current/last gen Radeon GPUs. Someone please clear that up.
It has 48 (dual-issue) Vec4+Scalar + Interpolator ALU "sets" IIRC, hard to compare directly to the current VLIW architecture
 
Back
Top