No Dolby Digital for Wii
- Thread starter pc999
- Start date
- Status
By that quote alone it could still have coaxial digital out (which should be ever so slightly cheaper to implement if price is a concideration).
Wii isn't supposed to support DVD movie playback (right?), so it's probably a licencing-cost issue more than anything. Why pay Dolby more than you need to.
Well, you guys do know that gamers are tired of long, complex games? They don't want high definition or necessarily care about cutting edge graphics.
On a serious note, Nintendo seems to be putting all their eggs into the Wii-mote basket and shunning everything else. Regardless of what is under the hood, the games at E3 looked last-gen quality (some even worse). In typical Nintendo style, cutting costs is important. Why add fancy audio support when your target audiance wont be using it for the most part? And since sound and graphics are not part of the core part of the experience.
Btw, Iwata E3 2005: "When you see the graphics on Revolution you will say 'Wow'".
Yeah, I said wow all right... "Wow, they are still using the GCN?!" I like my GCN and the games (the few it has), but as a GCN owner I have to protest: Why not just sell me the darned remote?! I understand the marketing angle and what not, but if they are not giving me a new console (sorry, overclocked GCN chips does not constitute new in my book -- just shinier old style graphics, in which case WHAT is the point?!) just sell me the darned remote and be done with it.
On a serious note, Nintendo seems to be putting all their eggs into the Wii-mote basket and shunning everything else. Regardless of what is under the hood, the games at E3 looked last-gen quality (some even worse). In typical Nintendo style, cutting costs is important. Why add fancy audio support when your target audiance wont be using it for the most part? And since sound and graphics are not part of the core part of the experience.
Btw, Iwata E3 2005: "When you see the graphics on Revolution you will say 'Wow'".
Yeah, I said wow all right... "Wow, they are still using the GCN?!" I like my GCN and the games (the few it has), but as a GCN owner I have to protest: Why not just sell me the darned remote?! I understand the marketing angle and what not, but if they are not giving me a new console (sorry, overclocked GCN chips does not constitute new in my book -- just shinier old style graphics, in which case WHAT is the point?!) just sell me the darned remote and be done with it.
Acert93 said:
When I saw XBox 360 and PS3 games (the actual real time ones) I said wow as well, "wow that's last gen games in high res".. The difference is I realise that I should wait until I see launch games (at least) to make a real judgement.
Also lets wait until we actually know what Wii hardware is before declaring it an overclocked GC. Lets be serious, at the very least things will be tweaked and features added.
Last edited by a moderator:
DPLIIx isn't that bad, sure it's not as good, but what matters is to have good surround sound, not necessarily the best of the best...
I only have a DPL decoder (not even II) myself, and I don't think I'll upgrade just for a console, although I recon people having the right setup would want to use it, but it'll still be put to good use, so no big deal...
I only have a DPL decoder (not even II) myself, and I don't think I'll upgrade just for a console, although I recon people having the right setup would want to use it, but it'll still be put to good use, so no big deal...
Iron Tiger
Regular
The Wii is a lot more than the Remote. It's the Virtual Console, and the hardware to make an immersive 3D experience. Processing the input of 4 Wii controllers at the refresh rate necessary for stuff like tennis takes a considerable amount of processing power. Not to mention the need to refresh the graphics at a rate that makes your input seem perfectly synchronized to the on-screen response. Then there's also the positional aspects of the sound from the Remote's speaker that can't be covered by the old Gekko and Flipper without pulling a lot of cycles away from graphics, AI, and physics. A hardware upgrade (even one as minor as you perceive it) was indeed necessary to make for an overall gaming experience that is an improvement over the GC. Besides that, it can't be ignored how terrible the adoption rate of add-ons has traditionally been. The Wii needed to be a new system. While I feel that the graphics are definitely gonna be a letdown after a few years (and I've actually seen the games in person to be able to say this), the immersiveness of the new controls will keep the gameplay fresh and interesting until the competition rips off every aspect of it (tilt sensing alone doesn't cut it).Acert93 said:
Zaphod said:
I thought DVD movie playback was in, with an additional kit.
Anyhow, why would they need to pay dolby anything, it wouldn't be decoding the dolby digital, it would just pass it through.
And since the console does have a digital output port, the coaxial or optical cable could be included on an aftermarket accessory.
I wouldn't expect dolby digital for games, but it'd be nice if they offered devs the option of doing dolby digital or dts if they wanted it. BTW, would pro logic 2 over a coaxial cable offer any better signal quality than using standard analog outputs?
Fox5 said:
IIRC, real time DD in games is not a slam dunk and does require some juice.
DD on DVDs supports downmixing to 2 channels so theyre covered in terms of getting sound from a DVD to your TV. It may not be 5.1 but clearly theyre not selling a made-for-HD-surround-sound system anyway.
I will say that, for some reason, this tips the scales in my head that this console needs to be $199.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't care if there's no optical out on wii, I have no spare optical in on my surround system anyway to plug it into even if it had it.
I've experienced enough DPLII on GC to know it actually works pretty well, and I'm sure it will in wii too.
I've experienced enough DPLII on GC to know it actually works pretty well, and I'm sure it will in wii too.
Teasy said:
While there is portware, I have to completely disagree. The 360 games I have played look much, much better than last gen games in high resolution. Having played some GRAW, CoD2, PGR3, and FNR3 I can safely say that these are not last gen games in high resolution. I see a bigger difference in graphical quality between the new GR from the old GR than I did between Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine. And even at MS's poor E3 2005 showing they had Gears of War in reatime (but not on MS hardware of course) indicating that there was potential/goal, which they have clearly delivered on. 6 months after the 360 launch we have seen a number of graphically exceptional titles running on the hardware. Rainbow Six:Vegas, Gears of War, Halo 3, Brother in Arms 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc. Some of these were even shown at X05 before the 360 launched. There are dogs on the 360 (quite a few), but that goes for any platform. As GCN owners we both know that very well.
And back to my point which you completely glossed over:
Iwata promised "WOW" factor when we saw Wii games. The direct feed media and the press reports all relate that they look like GCN games.
So Teasy, as a relentless Nintendo supporter, what is "Wow" about the graphics. Nintendo promised "Wow" when we saw the graphics. Have we seen any software or trailers that indicate there is any truth to this?
I don't doubt that there are some new features and tweaks. But lets not ignore the evidence as well:
* Nintendo has downplayed graphics and technology
* Wii is small; and the state of manufacturing indicates Wii will be on the 90nm process
* Developers have told the press that the clock speeds are ~50% bump over the GCN chips and have the same CPU:GPU frequency ratios
* The better looking Wii games look like nicely polished GCN games
I am all for being serious, but that means not ignoring all the relevant data at this point. Unless Nintendo is really late getting hardware (with new features) to developers and the Wii games are therefor just leveraging the "Overclocked GCN" aspect of the Wii (i.e. there is more under the hood, but this is all they have access to at this time but we can expect more later) then the only other option is to conclude what Matt at IGN was told. I don't deny that there is a chance there is some more advanced silicon in the Wii, and possibly not available to developers yet (thus launch software is basically leveraging GCN technology and solutions built up over the last 5 years). But that is a big what if.
There are always growing pains. The PS3 basically had nothing on hardware at E3 2005 less a few tech/engine demos. The 360 E3 2005 was on Alpha Kits (the GPU was not even tape out until July 05). Sony is looking at ~15 launch titles, even after 18 months of time with CELL/NV chips in dev hands and a 6 month delay. The biggest name in the business conceeded a 1 year lead in the market and has 15 games slated for market launch with a number of the better looking/playing games slipping later into the launch window. Ouch.
But launches and platform deployment take time to mature. So I can give the Wii some room to wiggle. But nothing official has indicated we should expect anything more than what we have saw.
Maybe the better question is: Why do you believe we should expect a significant leap in graphical fidelity in Wii launch games and/or games 1 year after launch?
Honest question :smile: I have owned every Nintendo home console and I would love to have a good reason to get a Wii, especially at the prices MS and Sony have on the market.
Iron Tiger said:
1. I have all the Nintendo consoles, so I don't need a virtual one! Especially if I have to pay to play games I already own!
2. Besides the controller, pray tell what hardware is in Wii, and not in the GCN, that makes an "immersive 3D experience"??
You categorically state that Wii is more than the remote and the hardware is there to give me an immersive 3D experience -- yet I have not seen anything that could not be done on my GCN.
I understand, from a business angle, why it would not work to just sell the Wii-mote. But as a GCN owner with little interest in paying $200 for the remote and slightly upgraded GCN level games (which may or may not change, but at this point that is what was shown). I would MUCH prefer a $50 remote addon and play slighly less detailed GCN games. So how is Wii giving me more immersive worlds, through the hardware?
Not true. The Wii-mote was already demoed on the GCN doing many of the same functions seen in the E3 2006 games. A version of Metroid was shown last year using the Wii-mote. As far as we know the wireless receiver can be translating the movements, but from watching the Wii-mote being demoed on the GCN I cannot say I agree with this point and we have yet to see any evidence that it is true.
I already said I understood that from a market perspective. But as a consumer who has supported the GCN that means the slate is clean and I am left holding my GCN. Do I want GCN level graphics with a Wii-mote that I could have been an addon for $199? From a consumer perspective I am paying $199 for the same stuff on screen I already get from the same company and a new controller.
For those 100% sold on the concept it is a no brainer.
I am not 100% sold on the concept. I think it will be great... in many genres. But I expect more for my money. There is no reason the Wii could not
+ have a killer remote
+ killer graphics
+ an aggressive plan to support all the major cross-platform games like BiA3 and Splinter Cell with the features, gameplay, and graphics in tact (i.e. make 3rd aprty developers work less AND leverage the product they already made! That is important to 3rd parties, to make a big return on their investment)
+ an even more aggressive plan to get exclusive content
They failed on 2 of those points, which in turn affects the longevity of the console (I am looking at my N64 and GCN library here... ouch) and also makes me scratch my head as a consumer: Do they offer enough to justify the price?
For those ONLY interested in a new gameplay experience cool, get a Wii.
But I quite happen to like 3rd party software, and I quite like a number of traditional gameplay schemes in current games. Wii so far has been all about the controller and the baby (next gen graphics; traditional gameplay) got thrown out with the bath water.
I was quite happy with my GCN's graphics compared to the Xbox and PS2. It was competitive. But the Wii doesn't even try based on the software we have seen. And as someone with a GCN I am scratching my head wondering, "Uh, why not just sell me a Wii-mote and let me continue using my GCN?" Obviously a bad marketing move, but then again when I look at my pocket book I have to wonder "$199 upgraded GCN I already own or $299 Xbox?"
I will wait for launch software to play Wii before I make a choice, but I ain't to impressed with anything about the Wii so far... less the very VERY cool controller.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
