No Dolby Digital for Wii

[darkblu]

allow me, Teasy

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.

you and i should have quite different safety standards as having played the first three of the four above i can say they pretty much are ; )

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.

to you.

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?

you did not but i wowed at the mp3 trailer. not because it was technologically unthinkable (i can think of many things technologically) but because it had an overall stunnig look as combination of artwork and technology. which, low and behold, is what consle games visuals are about. to me, at least.

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

* to the point where they said they'd be the same?
* that compared to 360 and ps3? - who calimed wii had the same umph?
* for the early devkits. we know practically nothing of the final version hw (aside from the expected mem pools).
* i was playing mainly nicely polished GC games all this time and i wowed at mp3.

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..

sorry, refresh my memory, when did MS deliver final hw to devs?

 

[pc999]

I will say that, for some reason, this tips the scales in my head that this console needs to be $199.

It is better be less, a lot less.

 

[Zaphod]

IIRC, real time DD in games is not a slam dunk and does require some juice.

Well. The only reference available is the C-Media software implementation, and according to reviews of those soundcards, the DD Live! encoding barely puts a dent in CPU usage. The overhead for any soundmixing at all via DirectSound is much larger than the added strain of DD encoding.

 

[expletive]

Well. The only reference available is the C-Media software implementation, and according to reviews of those soundcards, the DD Live! encoding barely puts a dent in CPU usage. The overhead for any soundmixing at all via DirectSound is much larger than the added strain of DD encoding.

Are we talking about taking a 2 channel stream and matrixing out to 5.1 or are we talking about encoding real time DD on the fly here?

For the longest time the only way to properly do this and output via a DD bitstream on the PC was the soundstorm audio card on the older nvidia motherboards. Subsequesnt solutions had introduced some latency into the equation. However, if there newer, less taxing ways of getting it done then i stand corrected.

 

[Fox5]

Well. The only reference available is the C-Media software implementation, and according to reviews of those soundcards, the DD Live! encoding barely puts a dent in CPU usage. The overhead for any soundmixing at all via DirectSound is much larger than the added strain of DD encoding.

I thought those cards had specific hardware on board for the encoding, similar to the Xbox APU or the nforce MCP-T? However, the Azalia HD audio does the encoding on the cpu (in addition to the surround sound processing?) and the performance hit is fairly large considering how much faster the cpus are than the Wii, but that could be because the sound mixing is being done by the cpu as well.

 

[Zaphod]

I thought those cards had specific hardware on board for the encoding, similar to the Xbox APU or the nforce MCP-T?

Nope. They do accelerate some of the sound processing tasks, but the DD encoding is entirely software. Around 5% on a 2Ghz A64. Not saying it would be a good idea for Wii, just that it's less taxing than some think.

 

[Ty]

It is better be less, a lot less.

Why would you expect it to be a lot less than $199?

Yes, it's quite likely that it will be quite a bit less powerful than x360/PS3. But you have to remember that both MS and Sony are very probably losing a ton of money even at their much higher price points. They are in effect, subsidizing the cost to consumers. Why would you automatically expect Nintendo to do the same?

If the price comes out at $199, you're going to get a $199 console.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Why would you expect it to be a lot less than $199?

Because it's basically Gamecube with remote, and Gamecube is selling for 99$. I don't see how manufacturing Wii could cost much more than Gamecube, I wouldn't even be surprised if Wii costs about the same to make, even with the remote. The footage and data I have seen so far tells me that 149$ is the absolute maximum that is reasonable for this system. Imo ofcourse.

 

[expletive]

Nope. They do accelerate some of the sound processing tasks, but the DD encoding is entirely software. Around 5% on a 2Ghz A64. Not saying it would be a good idea for Wii, just that it's less taxing than some think.

If you translate 5% of an A64 at 2ghz what would that be on the Wii CPU? I think i'll stand by my original statement, it takes some juice.

Maybe relatively less than what it did a few years ago because CPU power has increased, but still a sizeable chunk of the Wii CPU (based on what we can infer about it of course).

 

[TheChefO]

Because it's basically Gamecube with remote, and Gamecube is selling for 99$. I don't see how manufacturing Wii could cost much more than Gamecube, I wouldn't even be surprised if Wii costs about the same to make, even with the remote. The footage and data I have seen so far tells me that 149$ is the absolute maximum that is reasonable for this system. Imo ofcourse.

true - could be a brilliant cash cow on their part...

 

[pc999]

Why would you expect it to be a lot less than $199?

Yes, it's quite likely that it will be quite a bit less powerful than x360/PS3. But you have to remember that both MS and Sony are very probably losing a ton of money even at their much higher price points. They are in effect, subsidizing the cost to consumers. Why would you automatically expect Nintendo to do the same?

If the price comes out at $199, you're going to get a $199 console.

What Dr Evil said, I would pay 199$ if there is all the features and a Moores law upgrade (under that there is things X1600+ edram and much more than 970FX+). Unless there is a lot of extras (eg: multiple controlers+ shells+VC+...) I just cant see a reason to let them steal me.

Each day it seems it is really weaker, I dont mind if the price match.

 

[JasonLD]

Wii wasn't targeting hi-end consumers with HDTV and full home theater setup anyways so they really are putting the cost to a minimum.
I don't think people will care if Wii doesn't have optical output since quite a lot of people still doesn't know how to set up for dolby digital...let alone optical output.
Damn...I am sure Nintendo will make profit on the hardware from the day 1..

 

[pc999]

Wii wasn't targeting hi-end consumers with HDTV and full home theater setup anyways so they really are putting the cost to a minimum.
I don't think people will care if Wii doesn't have optical output since quite a lot of people still doesn't know how to set up for dolby digital...let alone optical output.
Damn...I am sure Nintendo will make profit on the hardware from the day 1..

That is interesting because today (right before I saw this) I as looking for cheap solutions to get 5.1 just for gaming althought I am nohere interested in HD.

 

[Guden Oden]

Because it's basically Gamecube with remote, and Gamecube is selling for 99$.

That's complete bunk.

Wii is not "basically" a GC with a remote. Wii has, apart from aforementioned remote:
* Slot-in DVDROM drive
* More processing power (undisclosed how much)
* Much more fast RAM (rumored: 3 2/3 times GC)
* WiFi
* Bluetooth
* Half a gig of on-board flash
* SD flashcard slot
* HiSpeed USB
+ Further undisclosed hardware features
* DVD movie playback ability
* Web browser
+ Software download features and more

The footage and data I have seen so far tells me that 149$ is the absolute maximum that is reasonable for this system. Imo ofcourse.

Perhaps your opinion on the matter is not entirely neutral and unbiased...

 

[Teasy]

Accert

I wasn't trying to gloss over any points you made. I personally was not wowed by any of the Wii graphics shown at E3. So I didn't argue with that point because I didn't disagree with it. What I do disagree with is the assertion that Wii must be just a GC (or a slightly overclocked GC) based on early games. I stick by what I said about 360, when I first saw real time games on the system (meaning before its launch) I thought they looked like HDTV resolution versions of then current generation games.

* 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

Nintendo have been playing down graphics technology since before GameCube came out and I'm sure far more then a 50% overclocked GC could fit into that case. Having said that I'm not doubting that Wii isn't going to have the power of the other two consoles, doesn't mean its an overclocked GC though.. I'm not sure what you meant by "the same CPU:GPU frequency ratios" so I'm interested to know what you mean there. Btw I'd say the best looking Wii games look better then the best looking GC games and they are early builds vs polished GC games that took years to make. Look at a good quality video of ExciteTruck for instance.

As far as Dev kits go I wouldn't say it has to be the case that developers haven't gotten development kits with close to final hardware. Just that they didn't have those kits long enough before E3 to make significant improvments to the graphics.

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?

I don't think we neccesarilly should expect a significant leap. What I said is we should expect some improvement, because at the very least these are not final games and haven't been exclusively developed on final hardware (I think we can all agree on that). I also said there could be a significant leap if the games we saw have been created on kits that are quite a bit weaker then final hardware.

EDIT: Just saw your post Ingenu, I'll try to stay on topic as much as possible from now on.

 

[pipo]

I've experienced enough DPLII on GC to know it actually works pretty well, and I'm sure it will in wii too.

Agreed. It works fine...

 

[DuckThor Evil]

That's complete bunk.

Wii is not "basically" a GC with a remote. Wii has, apart from aforementioned remote:
* Slot-in DVDROM drive
* More processing power (undisclosed how much)
* Much more fast RAM (rumored: 3 2/3 times GC)
* WiFi
* Bluetooth
* Half a gig of on-board flash
* SD flashcard slot
* HiSpeed USB
+ Further undisclosed hardware features
* DVD movie playback ability
* Web browser
+ Software download features and more

Umm so? Gamecube has sold for 99$ for a long time now, how much do you figure it costs to make it today? I don't believe those features you mentioned costs that much to add, also I thought DVD-playpack is not included in the box, but you have to buy an add-on to enable it. Anyways those upgrades are clearly overshadowed by the fact that it's basically Gamecube with remote...

Perhaps your opinion on the matter is not entirely neutral and unbiased...

I believe it is no more biased than your opinion... Actually I was waiting for your response as soon as I hit submit on my post, what took you so long?
Basically what I meant with 149$ was that at that price, I could feel I get some value for my purchase, when it goes higher I feel like it's a rip-off, maybe I'm used to the fact that console makers usually lose money on the hardware atleast initially, if Nintendo sells Wii for 199$/e or more, they are making a killing of it. Good business for them, not so good value for consumers like me.