Interview with Nintendo software engineer Takeshi Shimada (includes Wii GPU question)

[Shifty Geezer]

But Nintendo keep claiming that you don't need to make Halo3s only, there's still market for other games. And something like Wii Sports, Wario or Excite Truck can be produced considerably cheaper with XNA - a high-level framework the like of which Wii, due to its, "very different" (in the words of their engineer) hardware can't reasonably support.

Without having reference experience with the Wii development environment, you can't be absolutely sure that's true. It might be just as quick and straightforward to create Wiisports on Wii through Nintendo's SDK as it would be to create that game with XNA. Where you are right is that with better hardware, you don't need to push as hard to get the same quality. If Mario Galaxy needs careful hand-tuning of code to get it to run fast enough, with 2x the power, you wouldn't need to go to the trouble of hand-tuning the code to get the same quality result. Where developers in a way shoot themselves in the foot, is they want to push the hardware to get better results. Okay, some don't... But that's a choice the devs always have. As has been pointed out numerous times, the cost to create assets of Mario Galaxy class on XB360 or PS3 is the same as creating those assets on Wii : It's not cheaper, it just has a lower ceiling. Nintendo have chosen a maximum expenditure limit for their console (relative to game size). The quote says this was because Nintendo didn't want to spend more money on their titles than this much hardware can cope with...but that still ignores the improvements possible at no extra cost that better hardware provides.

 

[Readykilowatt]

Here's my first and last post in this thread.

So are gamers going to look at the new games and ask why should they spend the extra money to upgrade?

They might. And that's a real danger. We can no longer rely on graphics to make people go out and buy a new system. What we need is better content. We need to find more "Grand Theft Autos." "GTA" has huge open worlds, lots of capabilities, and tons of cars and people to interact with in a non-linear fashion. It's not just about the graphics.

This article was from June 1, 2005.

 

[Entropy]

The whole 'low-power new-gameplay Wii vs. High-power old-(ignoring sixaxis and stuff) -gameplay PS3' question would have been answered if both launched at the same price. If PS3 was $250, would Wii still be outselling it? Or would people prefer the better visual quality of PS3 for their money?

Of course that didn't happen, and that's the difference between tech choices. However, sales of these machines doesn't correlate 100% with what people want in terms of hardware capabilities, and we'll probably never know what would have happened, other than at $250, PS3 would have seen as much shortage as Wii is experiencing.

A very important point to realize is that it didn't happen because it couldn't happen. The Wii is engineered to a lower price point, pure and simple, and all things being equal, should enjoy a significant advantage in manufacturing cost for the life time of the console.

Or put another way, if the PS3 had been engineered to the manufacturing cost of the Wii, it couldn't have the hardware it does, it would be a completely different set of trade-offs than the present product.

And once again, we witness the vehement denial caused by the fact that other factors than CPU/GPU bragging rights actually matter to game players.
Could you guys who so decry the lack of GPU pedigree of the Wii please produce the specs for the rest of us, so that we may share your righteous indignation?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A very important point to realize is that it didn't happen because it couldn't happen. The Wii is engineered to a lower price point, pure and simple, and all things being equal, should enjoy a significant advantage in manufacturing cost for the life time of the console.

Sure, but that's not the argument. The argument 'Wii sales show people don't care about better graphics' misses the point. People do care about graphics, but not as much as price. Also Nintendo haven't designed Wii for low cost production just to keep it cheap and mainstream, but to keep it profitable. They could have put in a meatier GPU and given users the better graphics, without increasing the retail pricepoint. This would still created a highly profitable platform. They just chose more money over better product - good for their business but not so good for gamers, who could have got a better product for their dollars.

Could you guys who so decry the lack of GPU pedigree of the Wii please produce the specs for the rest of us, so that we may share your righteous indignation?

I guess you haven't been following the forum discussions Everything points to something like a doubled up Flipper with 50% extra clock. Everything, being die size, dev comments, BC with GC, and games.

 

[oli2]

I suggest you read the topic again, and see why i decided to comment on this PR. It was because a guy called "_xxx_" didn't understand why other people said the system architect evaded that question. I replied to his post, in a proper manner, giving out serious arguments and counter arguments, and explained why the guy totally evaded the question.

And then you start barging in here, making a post that claims "Nintendo put emphasis on these 95%", not only that, but not answering or giving a proper reply the the post your quoting in the first place. Not to mention that this ""Nintendo put emphasis on these 95%" is a totally ridiculous statement, because REGARDLESS of how ugly and mediocre your games are, more powerful hardware benefits every developer. Which i asked you to try to elaborate, and your reply to that was trying to find hidden agendas.

Why are you posting here? Are you doing some kind of damage control? It certainly seems so, don't go rushing out and calling my statement to be filled with some PS3 agenda. Your not even replying to the stuff at hand, AND your responding with meaningless one liners for most of the time.

It seems you are overreacting my comments. I was basically answering that :

There is absolutely nothing that says or implies that you cannot mix fun and gameplay with graphics. I dont buy the whole "gameplay is our main focus" thing from Nintendo. Gameplay is always the focus, and you can implement good gameplay and fun on any platform regardless of its power, its just up to developers making good games.

If you don't take in consideration time of development, bugdet, size of the teams, asset management and so forth, more is always better, that is sure ... Nintendo long time stated that more emphasis could be put on gameplay, fun, etc. (things you don't get as you said) instead of 3D effects along the basically same games than previous. Can we agree we disagree on that : "more powerful hardware benefits every developer"? My 95 % games comment was on this argument.

This comment, implies that i'm dumb. I'm not even going to dignify it with an answer

No you are wrong. I simply think you are re-hashing arguments beaten to death, that 's all. Shifty clearly explain what i think :

The whole 'low-power new-gameplay Wii vs. High-power old-(ignoring sixaxis and stuff) -gameplay PS3' question would have been answered if both launched at the same price. If PS3 was $250, would Wii still be outselling it? Or would people prefer the better visual quality of PS3 for their money?
Of course that didn't happen, and that's the difference between tech choices. However, sales of these machines doesn't correlate 100% with what people want in terms of hardware capabilities, and we'll probably never know what would have happened, other than at $250, PS3 would have seen as much shortage as Wii is experiencing.

To finish with, my only comment on OP was that obviously this person got trick by the journalist. I feel no interest in that because he is no PR people but a system architect.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

If you don't take in consideration time of development, bugdet, size of the teams, asset management and so forth, more is always better, that is sure ... Nintendo long time stated that more emphasis could be put on gameplay, fun, etc. (things you don't get as you said) instead of 3D effects along the basically same games than previous. Can we agree we disagree on that : "more powerful hardware benefits every developer"? My 95 % games comment was on this argument..

You dont get it.

There is no extra cost involved in making a X360 or a PS3 game for that matter, compared to the wii. You can make short "fun" cheap games, on any platform you choose.

Having more powerful hardware benefits everybody no way how you spin it, even if you don't want to make a good game graphically, it benefits you, whatever you want to make you can achieve it faster on a more powerful system, and it also leaves the room to improve stuff you previously didn't have the resources to do.

My whole comment was an explanation as to answer "xxx" question as to what indicates that the architects answer was a BS one, then you turned the whole thing into me being somebody who doesn't understand basic economy with fanboytendensies..

To finish with, my only comment on OP was that obviously this person got trick by the journalist. I feel no interest in that because he is no PR people but a system architect.

This is where your reply gets even worse. MY post was directed about what the system architect said, your quoting me, and answering in one liners and calling me out as a fanboy etc, and yet here you are claiming you have no interest in it.

No you are wrong. I simply think you are re-hashing arguments beaten to death, that 's all.

I did nothing of the sort, i simply answered XXX as to why his statement was full of BS. I did not re-hash any argument about which console is better.

Now, stop implying that i dont "get stuff" and that i dont understand basic economics, its getting annoying. Your quoting me and not responding to what im commenting about.

 

[oli2]

You dont get it.

There is no extra cost involved in making a X360 or a PS3 game for that matter, compared to the wii. You can make short "fun" cheap games, on any platform you choose.

Of course, everything is possible. But the systems are neither engeneered, neither marketted towards that. What would the sense for a developer to do that ?

Having more powerful hardware benefits everybody no way how you spin it, even if you don't want to make a good game graphically, it benefits you, whatever you want to make you can achieve it faster on a more powerful system, and it also leaves the room to improve stuff you previously didn't have the resources to do.

My argument is that "more powerful hardware benefits" but not to all. Why do you keep saying otherwise ? Last gen we got loads of shovelwares that sold hot.
People that bought Harry Potter and hundreds of sub-par graphically games did not give a shit about graphics...

My whole comment was an explanation as to answer "xxx" question as to what indicates that the architects answer was a BS one, then you turned the whole thing into me being somebody who doesn't understand basic economy with fanboytendensies..

Sorry, but look what you said... You want to link what this person said to "global view" on the situation.

This is where your reply gets even worse. MY post was directed about what the system architect said, your quoting me, and answering in one liners and calling me out as a fanboy etc, and yet here you are claiming you have no interest in it.

I did nothing of the sort, i simply answered XXX as to why his statement was full of BS. I did not re-hash any argument about which console is better.

Now, stop implying that i dont "get stuff" and that i dont understand basic economics, its getting annoying. Your quoting me and not responding to what im commenting about.

In most of my post of this topic, i was answering you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I think this person is at most "unclear". I only fail to see what is new ...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Of course, everything is possible. But the systems are neither engeneered, neither marketted towards that. What would the sense for a developer to do that ?

To spend less on developing a title to get returns quicker. And both XB360 and PS3 support cheap-to-make titles in their eDI's, which are being actively encouraged. Any dev eyeing up Wii as a cheap platform can choose to spend just as little on PS3 and XB360.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Of course, everything is possible. But the systems are neither engeneered, neither marketted towards that. What would the sense for a developer to do that ?

Your contradicting yourself, your entire argument is build up about how apparenlty 95% of all games were made with "ugly" in mind (or "fun" if you like that word better). Last generation, all the consoles were markedet as powerhouses. Yet developers made games for that, that looked fugly and still sold... Why should it be any difference this generation?

Why do you keep saying otherwise ? Last gen we got loads of shovelwares that sold hot.
People that bought Harry Potter and hundreds of sub-par graphically games did not give a shit about graphics...

Last generation was all about power, agreed? All consoles (except maybe the Gamecube, which was rather powerful, but wasn't really marketed as that) were advertising about how powerful they were. The PS2 was supposedly a "Supercomputer" if we believe the words of Krazy Ken Kutagari, and the Xbox was advertised to have "CGI graphics".

Yet lots of developers made games that were sub-par graphically, most of those games were that way because they had to small budgets, and they weren't aiming to have good graphics, they were made for a quick buck in mind. Other games, were sub-par graphically, but it was more a choice of art direction, or going a different route with say cartoonish graphics etc, than it was developer ability or budget.

My argument is that "more powerful hardware benefits" but not to all.

No matter what game your designing more power is always welcomed. Even if all your going to do is do a remake of Solitaire, more power is welcomed by any developer. It is ALWAYS an advantage.

More power not only allows developers to be more lazy, it also means that in most cases you can get the wanted result quicker. It makes things easier to achieve, it gives you the room to goof off, it also leaves more room for improvement.

Contrary to what you believe Oli2, the Wii is not particularly "cheap" to make games for. You can put in the same amount of work on either the PS3 or the X360 and get better results. Which brings me back to my initial point, with the question about the Wii gpu. The Wii GPU is build to be cheap, not to suit 95% of the developers like your trying to spin it. Its build simply to be cheap and to make a profit of it. Its not better suited for developers at all, developers are in fact WORSE off, because now, many of the developers that want to develop for the wii, and not just 6 hour party games, but epic games, have a lot more work on their hand. They need to push that hardware to its limits because in many areas, a lot of the stuff they want, simply cannot be put in because of lack of hardware resources, whereas, on the X360 or the PS3, they can achieve acceptible level technically faster, quicker, and let the gameplay and story speak for itself

 

[thundermonkey]

To spend less on developing a title to get returns quicker. And both XB360 and PS3 support cheap-to-make titles in their eDI's, which are being actively encouraged. Any dev eyeing up Wii as a cheap platform can choose to spend just as little on PS3 and XB360.

Still got those pesky dev kits to worry about. A much smaller dev could sink the cost of a Wii dev kit pretty easy, but both the 360 and PS3 kits are very costly. And depending on your size, you might need quite a few. So, which seems better? Spending 20k and getting 10 Wii SDK's or spending 500k and getting 10 PS3 kits?

Cost of development is just one facet that the Wii has over the PS3 and 360, but to be honest it's just cheaper all around. You can go the cheap route on both of the higher end consoles, but even the cheap route, isn't so cheap.

edit: And to add, I'm in no way saying, that more power equals "badness", but when you're going to talk about dev costs, bring everything in, not just what helps your arguement.

More power gives developers more paint to work with. It can never be a true hindrance, except if games that don't push the hardware stop selling. If the market on these platforms wants only the best, some developers will find themselves screwed.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Still got those pesky dev kits to worry about. A much smaller dev could sink the cost of a Wii dev kit pretty easy, but both the 360 and PS3 kits are very costly. And depending on your size, you might need quite a few. So, which seems better? Spending 20k and getting 10 Wii SDK's or spending 500k and getting 10 PS3 kits?

Dev kits is a one time expense for each generation, often the real price the developer ends up paying is also a lot less than the MRSP, because publishers and even the manufacturer are pretty generous when it comes to these things. (Manufacturers often give them away for cheap, if you say choose to develop exclusively for you (and have a decent gaming idea) stuff like that. )

For example, Microsoft is practically giving away devkits to developer teams in korea.

Dev kits cots is also a cost you should not attribute to one project alone, but to all the projects you make for that particular console, in the long run, those costs are insignificant

 

[zed]

If it supposed to only run wii-games in HD, and nothing new and breathtaking it would be ridiculously cheap as well.

thats the beauty of it from nintendos POV, the hardware is gonna cost what $10-20 bucks extra (for a slightly beefier gfx chip). yet theyll charge at least $50 more than the wii, == an xtra $30profit per console.
imagine the hype + jump in sales with the launch of the wiiHD at christmas 2008 (old + boring wii's,ps3's,xb360's) . to those that think thats to soon,
how long after the nintendo DS did the DS lite come out?

So what youre telling me is that 2 next gen consoles which have native 1080p games cant run Wii games(theoretically) in 1080p w AA?

im sure they could, but thats not what i said. i said the wiiHD could run all wii games at 1080p. for the ps3/xb360 the games would have to be converted (something im sure that nintendo wouldnt allow) thus its pointless to discuss. i suppose u could say whats to stop the ps3 coming out with a beefier RSX or xb360 with a beefier xenos, true they could but the problem is theyve played the HD card, + the consumers would be like 'ummm ok so now u promise me trueHD but i thought the console i got sold was already marketted as HD'

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I think your onto something.

*runs of and files patents for WiiHD*

 

[Bigus Dickus]

thats the beauty of it from nintendos POV, the hardware is gonna cost what $10-20 bucks extra (for a slightly beefier gfx chip). yet theyll charge at least $50 more than the wii, == an xtra $30profit per console.
imagine the hype + jump in sales with the launch of the wiiHD at christmas 2008 (old + boring wii's,ps3's,xb360's)

This just sounds ludicrous. And aren't games designed with a target resolution in mind when making menus and other GUI and text aspects? Would old games even be playable because of this? Does Wii allow a method for patching old games?

 

[Kiloran]

Ermmm....wasn't the WiiHD just an April Fools joke? I seem to remember reading about this on Digg earlier this month.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And aren't games designed with a target resolution in mind when making menus and other GUI and text aspects?

Yes. That is the problem zed hasn't taken into account. Unless Nintendo provide an API that incorporates automatic handling up upscaled resolution, and every dev uses it, WiiHD won't work. You could get future WiiHD games that also run on Wii, but the current library will be stuck rendering to SD. Though you could probably get some AA in there and deeper framebuffer, so no more dither.

 

[Fafalada]

yes as ive mentioned before on these forums, this is what the wii-HD will do (available i think around Christmas 2008) basically it will let u run all wii games in hi-res with AA

Yea, it will be based on the same chicken blood and goat intestiants powered voodoo technology that is used to create XBox360 scalers and which Sony borrowed for GOW2 promotion.

Yes. That is the problem zed hasn't taken into account

No no, that will all work fine. Details of the white paper escape me, but I remember it was the bat-claws processor that take rat-tail inputs that take care of regenerating any 16:9 graphical elements into 4:3 for you(as demonstrated by 360), and WiiHD is using improved version of this that can upscale even 2d elements by creating HD data from vacuum(actually the patent states it can work for any aspect ratios/resolutions, even 1x1 black pixel into full 1080P rescaling, but I think mainstream implementation doesn't support all of it) - it's really all very cool when you read about it. I think the only problem Nintendo currently have is that you need to buy goat-blood batteries to keep it powered up, but I'm sure they'll find some way around it.

 

[crystalcube]

Doesn't Wii already comes prepackaged with a Magic Wand ?

 

[assen]

I think the only problem Nintendo currently have is that you need to buy goat-blood batteries to keep it powered up, but I'm sure they'll find some way around it.

But I thought Sony has all the goat-blood-related patents at this point?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But I thought Sony has all the goat-blood-related patents at this point?

Ha ha ha ha ha! Since when have Sony invented anything? Nintendo invented goats-blood technologies, and Sony copy...

(I feel an end of thread is imminent)