What, no thread about the official Wii U release date and prices?

[ERP]

Personally I don't really understand what N is trying to do, the hardware is clearly designed to make PS360 ports as easy as possible, if PS4/720 is a significant step up as expected then they aren't getting those "ports" anyway, so that gives them maybe 3 years of ported product.
Maybe that's enough to make it a relevant platform and they can carry it with Wuu specific titles from that point IDK, doesn't seem very likely to me though.
FWIW I think having twice as much memory as PS360 is probably the least of its issues long term.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I don't get it either. I initially hoped they would design a system that could atleast run ps720 ports in some shape or form, not just a ps360+.

Maybe nintendo hopes the easy porting means they got a lot of (good) games fast which could help their userbase grow fast and when the porting stops they might hope that their usebase is large enough to make it attractive to develop for along with the lower development costs and by the time ps720 comes out probably a console that costs half as much or less than as a ps720.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Can Wii U play Gamecube and Wii games ? on that tablet controller ?

How far is tha range of that tablet controller ?

At the moment I'm just not feeling it for the Wii U. The hook just isn't there and with that hook they're competing with other tablets on the market. They didn't even bother upgrading the Wiimote for WiiU.

No Gamecube compatibility. No Wii games on the controller screen (or any virtual console titles, either).

 

[tuna]

The logical counter argument to that would be that the PS360 won't be on sales for that much longer, relative to the Wuu, and the source of ports would be like a well quickly drying out. The console has to stand on its own legs/merit if it's to become a lasting, viable choice.

Lots of RAM would therefore help.

Publishers will probably make PS360 versions for quite some time in the future. I think they made PS2 versions of FIFA and NBA up until last year.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No Wii games on the controller screen (or any virtual console titles, either).

If that's not supported now (for non-Wiimote games) than it should be an easy add.

 

[Brad Grenz]

You'd think, which is weird why it isn't supported now.

 

[Cornsnake]

Who is the Wii U being designed for? Hardcore gamers probably won't like the specs. And casuals probably don't care about the specs, but already have the low spec Wii standing around collecting dusk. The novelty factor wearing off might keep them from buying another console that may seem gimmicky.

The Wii U seems caught in some weird middle ground. If they can appeal to both types gamers it might a huge success. But now it looks too diluted to appeal to either.

 

[Brad Grenz]

You ask that assuming Nintendo has any idea.

 

[egoless]

1GB of RAM available to games?

I hadn't heard that. Why would they nerf their console so much on something that is so inexpensive? I can understand not going state of the art with the CPU or GPU, but that's a fairly inadequate amount of RAM if they expect this console to still be on the shelves in 2014.

Curious. Over the liftetime of the PS3 and 360, B3D has hammered home those systems were only bottlnecked by the choice of 512MB of RAM and also for the latter only 10MB of EDRAM. There's constant portrayal that there would be a quantum leap if only those things increased slightly (just enough edram for a full 1080p image and the OS footprint was smaller to leave more precious ram available). The 10 year lifespan rhetoric is said impossible because Sony and Microsoft were so shortsighted on ram.

Well here's WiiU with a full 1GB of RAM available to games, another 1GB to hold anything dashboard related (need I remind you of the PS3 memory usage thread) and enough edram to fit full HD and then some while removing the tiling hit. And even if the the WiiU has numbers slightly less than PS360 on performance, what happened to the contant hammering that memory makes up any perceived deficiency? Like selling the low end discrete graphics card with extra useless memory.

Or maybe, just maybe, what matters is that the system is balanced. So far, it sounds like the WiiU is just that.

 

[Rodéric]

Given it's released with console + gametablet and no other accessories, I assume it's targeted at the Wii audience, who already own Wiimotes and Nunchucks.
So it's a bit like a Wii HD, except the gametablet could make quite a difference.
(Unlike an accessory it's guaranteed to be there, which mean devs should use it...)

I think we should also consider the price of making games, a platform for which a lot of software R&D is already done should mean more profits for publishers, or less risks, so a good thing overall.
(Would be better if that was reflected in the games prices )

Well anyway, Nintendo games + Monster Hunter, why don't you have one ordered already ? ;p

 

[Brad Grenz]

Is an up res'd version of a down res'd version of a Wii game really that big of a deal? I mean, did MonHun Portable 3rd HD sell like crazy on PS3? I have trouble believing paying $400 to play a 3DS game on your TV is a killer app.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Curious. Over the liftetime of the PS3 and 360, B3D has hammered home those systems were only bottlnecked by the choice of 512MB of RAM and also for the latter only 10MB of EDRAM. There's constant portrayal that there would be a quantum leap if only those things increased slightly (just enough edram for a full 1080p image and the OS footprint was smaller to leave more precious ram available). The 10 year lifespan rhetoric is said impossible because Sony and Microsoft were so shortsighted on ram.

This is an incredibly ignorant thing to say, especially given any knowledge of the available cost and RAM densities available to MS & Sony at the time. GDDR3 and to a greater extent XDR RAM used in both consoles was state of the art, high bandwidth, high cost memory at the time. And considering that MS was originally going to put only 256MB of GDDR3 into the Xbox 360, goes to show how significant even 256MB of extra RAM was in their design decisions regarding the console. Those two consoles were two of the most expensive consoles ever at launch (rediculously so for the PS3), therefore calling MS & Sony "short-sighted" for not suicidally upping their RAM amounts, which would have critically ruined their console businesses, and damn near sunk Sony altogether, is just more than a little naive.

Well here's WiiU with a full 1GB of RAM available to games, another 1GB to hold anything dashboard related (need I remind you of the PS3 memory usage thread)....

We still don't know what type of RAM it is yet ;-)

... and enough edram to fit full HD and then some while removing the tiling hit..

Again, this is an assumption. The EDRAM in WiiU may not be a framebuffer, rather an L3 cache for the CPU. Again, whose to say at this point that this isn't the case, as if what you say is true, I would expect to see perfect 4xMSAA on all the WiiU launch games, as it would be effectively "free". Since that's clearly not what I'm seeing, even dispite the constantly parroted rhetoric of "they're just launch games", i'm still not convinced that the WiiU hardware setup in terms of EDRAM usage is the same as the Xbox360. I guess we'll see... ;-)

And even if the the WiiU has numbers slightly less than PS360 on performance, what happened to the contant hammering that memory makes up any perceived deficiency? Like selling the low end discrete graphics card with extra useless memory.
Or maybe, just maybe, what matters is that the system is balanced. So far, it sounds like the WiiU is just that.

I would argue the exact converse actually. As based on the rumours (as that's the only thing that either of us can base our opinions off), the WiiU has a weak CPU, clocked lower than Xenon and CELL, and with pitiful SIMD units.

Given that devs like Carmack even complained about the "weakness" of Xenon and the CELL PPU, a console with an alleged 1.5-3 times faster GPU, twice the available RAM, and a worse CPU sounds severely imbalanced to me, especially if you consider PS3 and Xbox 360 as reasonably balanced systems. None of the launch games go any ways toward disproving that in my eyes (subjective I admit).

At this moment I'm just not as convinced as you are egoless. It seems like Nintendo has fumbled things with the WiiU, creating an effective WiiHD, rather than a generational upgrade from the other two consoles. It's dissappointing to me, as Nintendo could have easily afforded the engineering and production of a really great and solid machine, that was a clear generational leap above PS360. Instead however they decided to chea out, just as they did with the 3DS HW.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Again, this is an assumption.

I think it's a pretty safe assumption. Having a large store of super-high-bandwidth RAM in a games console and limiting it to the CPU would be the worst design decision of a console ever.

 

[Prophecy2k]

I think it's a pretty safe assumption. Having a large store of super-high-bandwidth RAM in a games console and limiting it to the CPU would be the worst design decision of a console ever.

I agree, but I do question why it's use hasn't seemed so evidently apparent so far.

Perhaps the SDK limits access to it, or that it's underdeveloped and that devs cannot afford the optimisation time to make us of it?

I will accept that the above may indeed be possibilities.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree, but I do question why it's use hasn't seemed so evidently apparent so far.

How would it be evident? AA and particle effects come to mind, but if dev kits haven't had access to this eDRAM part yet, then they wouldn't be exhibiting bandwidth-dependent features.

 

[liolio]

Has this interview been posted? (Credit to kotaku)

I would like that part to come true:

"But the fact is that in the Wii U we've built a lot of capability. And during the Nintendo Direct that happened last night or two nights ago, overnight Wednesday to Thursday, we showed a lot of specs information for the Wii U: the fact that it has an extremely large RAM built into the system, the fact that the discs are high-capacity [25gb] discs. And so we've got a system that, based on our review of the world and our architecture, it absolutely's gonna hold up and bring the best content from third-party for a long, long time."

If we look at the PC world, with more and more laptop, APU, etc. It seems that we won't see more than quad core for while. Actually some Haswel dual core might be all you need for quiet some times.
Linking this to IBM reaffirmation (third time) of an power7 chip, I can see their CPU holding its own for a while (if actually power7 based).
If they have 32MB of EDram and bunch of bandwidth to play with the gpu could hold its own too and keep with APU which with things as on package ram may turn in a more and more tempting target (wrt to perfs) for pc games developers.

 

[Sjamaan]

the fact that it has an extremely large RAM built into the system

Compared to what? Smartphones? Not anymore. PC-gamer builds? Sure not.
To dying consoles 8yr old? Halleluiah!

Personally speaking, I wouldn't call a 2GB pool "extremely large" for any electronic device anymore. Large enough? Maybe. But surely not for anything that aspires for a mid-long life expectancy.

 

[egoless]

This is an incredibly ignorant thing to say, especially given any knowledge of the available cost and RAM densities available to MS & Sony at the time. GDDR3 and to a greater extent XDR RAM used in both consoles was state of the art, high bandwidth, high cost memory at the time. And considering that MS was originally going to put only 256MB of GDDR3 into the Xbox 360, goes to show how significant even 256MB of extra RAM was in their design decisions regarding the console. Those two consoles were two of the most expensive consoles ever at launch (rediculously so for the PS3), therefore calling MS & Sony "short-sighted" for not suicidally upping their RAM amounts, which would have critically ruined their console businesses, and damn near sunk Sony altogether, is just more than a little naive.

Yes, it IS completely ignorant of people to say. I am not one of them. I am just reiterating what has transpired since the launch of the HD twins. I am not on the side of a company eating such high costs for little to no gain, such as including a HDD in every box. For example, what is the point of the 20GB PS3 at this point when you're going to buy a new HDD anyway? And so with RAM, what is the point of overloading a system with RAM if it serves little to no gain. Which is why I brought up low end graphics cards with lots of RAM. Looks good for tickboxes, not for real usage.

Yes, a minor bump in the 360 RAM did wonders, especially with the low footprint OS. Now we're talking a full gig available to games with a full gig set aside for the OS. That sounds right for the perfect PS360 discussed here for so many years.

At this moment I'm just not as convinced as you are egoless. It seems like Nintendo has fumbled things with the WiiU, creating an effective WiiHD, rather than a generational upgrade from the other two consoles. It's dissappointing to me, as Nintendo could have easily afforded the engineering and production of a really great and solid machine, that was a clear generational leap above PS360. Instead however they decided to chea out, just as they did with the 3DS HW.

I'm merely playing devil's advocate to the notion that gobs of ram solves all. Nintendo isn't going to get into a spec war with MS and Sony. It has served them well not to. Instead of doing the norm of releasing a high priced state-of-the-art system, then reducing the prices and shoveling casual software onto the system at the tail, Nintendo merely fast forwarded with the Wii as the casual system right off the bat. Now when the HD twins are supposed to hit that causal tail while the new systems emerge, Nintendo is releasing what they would have had if they went state-of-the-art with the HD twins, while fixing some bottlenecks in those designs afforded by time.

PS2 lived long after the PS3 launched. Wii can't do that for Nintendo because they already fast forwarded the console lifecycle, so there had to be a WiiU. Will a PS360 survive as long in the tail, to support the next console iteration, with WiiU on the shelves? It's an intersting gamble to build hardware around that. But it worked for the Wii so why not?

 

[zed]

Those two consoles were two of the most expensive consoles ever at launch (rediculously so for the PS3)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Now when the HD twins are supposed to hit that causal tail while the new systems emerge, Nintendo is releasing what they would have had if they went state-of-the-art with the HD twins, while fixing some bottlenecks in those designs afforded by time.

PS2 lived long after the PS3 launched.

Is that actually a good strategy though? Typically, AFAIK, consoles sell with a rapid tail off in their final years when there are new improved consoles out, and don't shift much software. PS2 only survived because it was sold to new territories, and it didn't make much money during that period (although I may be wrong on that as Sony's losses were huge). Sony only made lots of money from PS1 and PS2 because they were long lived, generating lots of software sales over their life. To release a 'mop up' console...I don't see the reasoning.

Wii can't do that for Nintendo because they already fast forwarded the console lifecycle, so there had to be a WiiU. Will a PS360 survive as long in the tail, to support the next console iteration, with WiiU on the shelves? It's an intersting gamble to build hardware around that. But it worked for the Wii so why not?

PS360 have hundreds of games at all prices, from modern AAA titles to cheap download titles to old classics and budget titles. They have extensive word-of-mouth marketing and social networks that a new customer would be buying into (eg. friends have an XB360 already so when buying a new HD console, you could join up with them). You can also share games with friends who already own them.

Wii U will have the price of a current console but none of the content or momentum, so it's not a straight like-for-like option for buyers. Whatever improved visuals it may offer as a slightly improved take on the generation of hardware (if it is) aren't a strong selling point against everything else on offer. There won't even be a price advantage as if Sony and/or MS feel pinched, they can drop their price under $200. So Wii U hasn't really got an advantage as a current-gen machine. It has to sell as a new machine, for which it hasn't got the hardware. So it's kinda outside the envelope, relying on the Wuublet to sell it, which Nintendo aren't getting behind and clarifying what the heck it's even going to do! If it played Wii games enhanced to HD, they could at least sell it as a progression to Wii owners.