Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename

[Stewox]

the hardware really plays the factor here ...also for the initial buyy is the name factor considering itll get a more hardcore name for its the target audience atleast getting the big guys fit, since the name doesnt make the casuals more excited, its nintendo, families gonna buy it for mario regardless of the name, but in the mainstream it might make some effect , certainly ther hardcore dont really care about things like this
but it-s a plus if it has more professional feel to it, really want to see the results of how they want to suffice both groups .. will nintendo make it , if it does, ladies and gentleman this might be nintendo revolution ...

and i kind of dont care about 3rd parties personally from a gamer perspective since i usually play first parties and thats why i use nintendo, but also cause i play most other games on PC where im savvy well enough for any tech issues which arent a big deal for me.
but on the other hand obviously i dont want to see it fail or below expectations since they were commited to just this cause to get back into serious gaming , but heck when you look at it , they diddnt reall lose the hardcore, not me either, metroid didnt sell any less, ssbb sold like hell and has great community, and everyone still waited for zelda.

but there is one reason i would like nintendo to succeed above expectations, just to prove michael pachter wrong!

 

[Stewox]

what i wanted to add, is that it feels so great when your perdictions are better than some "professional" and to see the whole web melting seeing all those noobs being all surprised, kind of amusing , not being evil. ;P

 

[Legendary]

More expensive than Wii is now..



Those prices are beyond Nintendo's target audience? We are all making our best guess, but I don't think Nintendo is making a core gaming console to go against Sony and MS. Nintendo never goes head-to-head.

It's another gimmick based console doing its own thing for a wide casual gaming demographic that at its core includes kids and Nintendo fans.

Nintendo is still feeling the burn of 3DS's high priced launched disaster.

Wider and deeper.

Just like most people ignored the blue ocean speech given with Wii's reveal, most people also seem to ignore the speech given at Wii U's reveal.

The system is meant to target both the casual and core audience.
Nintendo clearly said they want the system to be a balance between both audiences, something people who are already calling it a 'casual machine' ignore.

Also Reggie said that Wii U at launch will be for customers who want the "latest gadgets and have a higher disposable income"?

 

[BRiT]

Didn't Iwata said wii u would be a more expensive console?

Yes, he or some other top level exec said one would need over $60K of disposable income to be in the market group they are targeting with it, otherwise you should be looking at the Wii original.

Here's the discussion we had on that over here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1608492#post1608492

Nintendo’s President Expecting a Strong Holiday and Says What He Really Thinks of Zynga

The market is going to continue to differentiate based on the types of experiences that consumers want. As an example, if I’m the head of a household of a family of four, and my disposable income is $50,000 to $60,000, I’m going to continue to look at the Wii because of the software, and it’s a great entertainment device. For consumers who want to have the latest gadgets and have a higher disposable income, that’s for the Wii U.

 

[bgassassin]

Those prices are beyond Nintendo's target audience? We are all making our best guess, but I don't think Nintendo is making a core gaming console to go against Sony and MS. Nintendo never goes head-to-head.

It's another gimmick based console doing its own thing for a wide casual gaming demographic that at its core includes kids and Nintendo fans.

Nintendo is still feeling the burn of 3DS's high priced launched disaster.

Well when the rumors first came out the reported BOM was $350-$400. I think the 3DS situation is what keeps it from being $400. Though the 3DS' lack of software was as much if not more to blame.

At the same time Nintendo has made multiple references to who their target is at launch and it's not the $249 casual. I'm not saying $349 will work, but that's what I expect it to be around.

Also I'm of the belief that $349 will be $50-$100 less than what MS and/or Sony offer so it's not like it would be going "head-to-head" with them.

the hardware really plays the factor here

This is why I'm estimating the amount to be what it is. Approx. $300 on the console and approx. $50 on the controller. Iwata said himself they are deciding whether or not to sell Wii U hardware at a loss. A price of $299 or $349 would guarantee that based on my BOM, and even $349 might be a slight loss when factoring accessories packed in.

 

[Squilliam]

Current gen, 7 year old tech, performance is selling 25 million consoles a year, while gamers buying awesome PC hardware to get a next-gen experience aren't showing massive growth. The evidence is that visuals aren't going to be that important unless ushering in a proper next-gen in the conventional mold. So unless Nintendo go with a monster machine to be sold on the strength of its power, wherein the tablet plays an ancilliary role, then there's nothing shocking about them being conservative.

Expensive hardware also means expensive games. I guess it isn't that visuals aren't important, the importance of graphics are often overstated mainly because of their lack of cost effectiveness. If you have to sell games at $40 then you always have that problem like with say the Vita of someone coming along and selling a pretty equivalent title for $5-10 on iOS, then you can ask whether the lower margin on the hardware and fewer overall sales made up for the additional performance?

I suspect that the level of performance they are targeting isn't in relation to beating or matching current generation consoles, I suspect they are more looking at being able to reproduce functional renditions of current and next generation games. The big problem with the Wii wasn't that it's hardware 'sucked', it was because it couldn't play functionally equivalent current generation titles albeit toned down. In hindsight I believe that even reproducing a toned down 480P rendition of current generation games would have been of more benefit to them than backwards compatibility.

The big question IMO isn't whether or not the Wii U will make current generation titles look any better. The question really is whether or not you can take nearly 100% of next generation titles and make them feature and art complete.

 

[Rangers]

it was because it couldn't play functionally equivalent current generation titles albeit toned down.

Not trying to get into another hornets nest, but to me the "almost as good" argument doesn't really fly either.

Even if, Console X is only 30% less powerful than console Y, I believe it's still probably basically a lost cause.

If Wii had been half as powerful as PS360, I see it's sales outcome as being almost not moved an inch from what it did anyway. Half is still not nearly good enough. Nobody would have been like "ooh, I'm going to get COD on the Wii!" What, at half resolution? Half framerate (this would have been more tolerable I can almost see it working, then again it would be 20-25 FPS)? Half the effects? Which option is palatable?

Just imagine if, PS3 had been downclocked a mere 10% from every clock it's currently at (so, 2.9ghz Cell, 450 mhz RSX, whatever-10% RAM or say -50 MB's). Or, the same exercise for 360. In either case ramifications likely would have been pretty huge. A mere 10%. -20% would have ended the ballgame for either imo. Support would have consolidated around the clearly stronger machine and since they sell almost 50-50 it wouldn't have taken much to tip the scales.

As it is Ps3 and 360 are eerily almost exactly equal. To this day if you put a gun to my head I dont know that there's a clear winner between the two technically (the argument would be PS3 exclusives versus 360 better multiplats), which is kind of astonishing, but I suspect a rarity we arent likely to see again.

This idea that "oh if wii u is 80% as good as the other guys it'll be close enough" sounds appealing, but imo probably isn't even true. Although it's in range where it might be reasonable, because you would have a year+head start. 70% would definitely be to the point of a lost cause imo. The other big problem is going to be that controller is going to add a cost burden regardless and aside from any other issues. If you are 80% as good and a year headstart, in order to really make that work you're probably going to have to be aggressive on price, which is going to be a specific problem for Wii U. On the flipside you could believe the tablet controller will be an external force creating demand the other guys dont have, like motion control did for the Wii. Personally i dont see that though. If anything I see that being an annoying nag, but it could have appeal I havent realized yet.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's a chicken or the egg argument. Who would buy hardware for games that don't exist? Who would make software for a market that doesn't purchase?

As ever, you misunderstand completely what's being said. I didn't say there's no future for a super-powered console, or that there isn't a market for it. I even explained where Nintendo should focus if they do want to go that route. What I did say is there's not much market for this-gen graphics at higher framerates and resolutions. If Wuu is only going to offer moderately perked versions of current gen games, it won't be attracting business from core gamers. Ergo, what's the point in enabling a machine to render MW3 at 1080p if Joe Gamer is happy to play MW3 at <720p when enabling that involves added cost for Nintendo? (That's not a conclusive argument against, but the sort of consideration an intelligent designer/engineer will be pondering.)

Now, repeating myself as you seemed to have missed it last time, if Nintendo decided to create a proper next-gen console to attract the core gamer, then they would see success with a fancy graphics powerhouse. But that same console will only cost more with addition of the tablet that won't be needed for those core gamers, so why bother with the tablet? If Nintendo want to do a core console, it makes little business sense to also incorporate a tablet and try to sell that side of the market, at least in the same one device. Nintendo have decided, rightly or wrongly, to go with the tablet as their strategic approach for their next box. Taking that as fact, the sense in putting in awesome hardware at added cost which isn't going to affect the desirability of the tablet much isn't there. It was the same with Wii - what was the minimum hardware cost Nintendo could go with to enable their business strategy? They could have added better hardware, but if that extra $20 a console costs lead to only 5% added consumer interest/sales, because the draw of waggle was very strong irrespective of graphics performance, then Nintendo would have lost a billion or two dollars.

It's the same designing any product. It'd be nice to offer everything to all people and have the widest appeal, but adding features adds costs. So engineers know to take a set of options (speed, strength, cost) and pick some of them, not all of them. Out of the variables Nintendo has to juggle, they will be deciding around the tablet experience, not the uber-gamer experience. Hence the choice of hardware not being uber-powerful is not at all shocking.

 

[Ninjaprime]

Not trying to get into another hornets nest, but to me the "almost as good" argument doesn't really fly either.

Even if, Console X is only 30% less powerful than console Y, I believe it's still probably basically a lost cause.

If Wii had been half as powerful as PS360, I see it's sales outcome as being almost not moved an inch from what it did anyway. Half is still not nearly good enough. Nobody would have been like "ooh, I'm going to get COD on the Wii!" What, at half resolution? Half framerate (this would have been more tolerable I can almost see it working, then again it would be 20-25 FPS)? Half the effects? Which option is palatable?

Just imagine if, PS3 had been downclocked a mere 10% from every clock it's currently at (so, 2.9ghz Cell, 450 mhz RSX, whatever-10% RAM or say -50 MB's). Or, the same exercise for 360. In either case ramifications likely would have been pretty huge. A mere 10%. -20% would have ended the ballgame for either imo. Support would have consolidated around the clearly stronger machine and since they sell almost 50-50 it wouldn't have taken much to tip the scales.

As it is Ps3 and 360 are eerily almost exactly equal. To this day if you put a gun to my head I dont know that there's a clear winner between the two technically (the argument would be PS3 exclusives versus 360 better multiplats), which is kind of astonishing, but I suspect a rarity we arent likely to see again.

Just like PS2 was a lost cause after the Xbox came out right? After all it was 3-4x as powerful...

Just like playing PC games on a 7770 looks terrible and is a lost cause because its ~1/3 the power of the highend hardware that was targeted, right?

You're reaching too hard.

 

[Sonic]

Shifty might be on to something here. There was an interview where a top guy at Nintendo, maybe Iwata, said the machine will not be limited to HD resolutions. It might be that the machine's games could do next gen graphics, just scaled back to an acceptable performance level. What sacrifices in graphics that will represent is remained to be seen. Because let's face it, PS4 and Xbox3 will definitely be more powerful than Wii U, and if the Wii U has a large enough installed base then many games will be ported to it.

I would like to see a decently powerful machine, but knowing Nintendo they like to gimp their hardware in the name of saving a dollar. I just really wonder how the devs at Nintendo have felt during the current generation being limited to Xbox level hardware. They must be itching to make games on something far more powerful.

 

[east of eastside]

Nintendo's business model is selling first-party games, w/ much lower than typical AAA game development costs, to the widest possible audience with very long sales charts legs. Any machine priced over $300 would preclude that. It's not happening..

There is no business model in which Nintendo significantly increases its development costs (w/ fany next-gen visuals), as well as its hardware costs, while shrinking their initial audience for over a year until the machine drops to a mass market friendly price.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Nintendo's business model is selling first-party games, w/ much lower than typical AAA game development costs,

If the Zelda, Metroid and Mario Galaxy series aren't AAA then I don't know what it is.

 

[Stewox]

As ever, you misunderstand completely what's being said. I didn't say there's no future for a super-powered console, or that there isn't a market for it. I even explained where Nintendo should focus if they do want to go that route. What I did say is there's not much market for this-gen graphics at higher framerates and resolutions. If Wuu is only going to offer moderately perked versions of current gen games, it won't be attracting business from core gamers. Ergo, what's the point in enabling a machine to render MW3 at 1080p if Joe Gamer is happy to play MW3 at <720p when enabling that involves added cost for Nintendo? (That's not a conclusive argument against, but the sort of consideration an intelligent designer/engineer will be pondering.)

Now, repeating myself as you seemed to have missed it last time, if Nintendo decided to create a proper next-gen console to attract the core gamer, then they would see success with a fancy graphics powerhouse. But that same console will only cost more with addition of the tablet that won't be needed for those core gamers, so why bother with the tablet? If Nintendo want to do a core console, it makes little business sense to also incorporate a tablet and try to sell that side of the market, at least in the same one device. Nintendo have decided, rightly or wrongly, to go with the tablet as their strategic approach for their next box. Taking that as fact, the sense in putting in awesome hardware at added cost which isn't going to affect the desirability of the tablet much isn't there. It was the same with Wii - what was the minimum hardware cost Nintendo could go with to enable their business strategy? They could have added better hardware, but if that extra $20 a console costs lead to only 5% added consumer interest/sales, because the draw of waggle was very strong irrespective of graphics performance, then Nintendo would have lost a billion or two dollars.

It's the same designing any product. It'd be nice to offer everything to all people and have the widest appeal, but adding features adds costs. So engineers know to take a set of options (speed, strength, cost) and pick some of them, not all of them. Out of the variables Nintendo has to juggle, they will be deciding around the tablet experience, not the uber-gamer experience. Hence the choice of hardware not being uber-powerful is not at all shocking.

That's the whole point we're taking into account, the controller can't be better to shift from motion control, it's just a win, it'll be good for old classic games, plus with all the motion stuff, plus the screen, i mean, this is the shifting, but the public will have a bad perception if it ends up only 100% or 2x times better than the current gen, that will not sound like next gen which is what everyone would like, but still if it goes horrible, will probably buy it anyways for first-parties, but probably not on release date.

Nobody really bashed the controller much aside of the % that obviously don't want to think and if you just take the devs who talked about it in interviews those that didn't even had stuff in development (eg carmack from id software), what everyone pointed out is the multiplayer and nintendo listened the feedback.

I can say that they are listening closes+ly and taking a lot of feedback from developers, Darksiders 2 developer pointed some things out.

Because i was worried aswell when i heard about only one per system

And this:
http://shrani.si/f/1A/Kt/3qINCCPC/nintendowin.jpg

Just one idea ... out of hundreds.

Shifty might be on to something here. There was an interview where a top guy at Nintendo, maybe Iwata, said the machine will not be limited to HD resolutions. It might be that the machine's games could do next gen graphics, just scaled back to an acceptable performance level. What sacrifices in graphics that will represent is remained to be seen. Because let's face it, PS4 and Xbox3 will definitely be more powerful than Wii U, and if the Wii U has a large enough installed base then many games will be ported to it.

I would like to see a decently powerful machine, but knowing Nintendo they like to gimp their hardware in the name of saving a dollar. I just really wonder how the devs at Nintendo have felt during the current generation being limited to Xbox level hardware. They must be itching to make games on something far more powerful.

Good point, especially the second paragraph.

 

[Stewox]

Oh man

News on some new kind of sensor on the controller.

http://thewiiu.com/topic/2681-nintendo-patent-reveals-environment-sensor-unit-for-wii-u/

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...the public will have a bad perception if it ends up only 100% or 2x times better than the current gen,...

Except 'the public' won't. They have zero understanding of relative performance. They just see the graphics and decide if they like them or not, and they see the experience and decide if they like it or not. "Wii doesn't look very pretty, but it does look fun. Let's buy it!"

Nintendo's whole gamble is the tablet experience being attractive. If it is, the rest of the system doesn't matter a great deal, so they can save money on it ("Wuu doesn't look very pretty (actually it looks no worse to what everyone is happy with at the moment), but it does look like fun. Let's buy it!"). If it isn't, the rest of the system won't save them, unless they invest massively in it like a conventional next-gen of console hardware. "Don't get that Wuu tablet controller, but Modern Warfare sure looks good. Let's buy it!" But with that strategy they will almost certainly lose out to the next systems who will likely be more powerful (later) and maybe cheaper (no tablets) and who already have the core gamer entrenched in Live! or PSN. Unless there's a role reversal, with MS and Sony going cautious next-gen, maybe with lower performance and gimmick. Then Nintendo could trump them with a monster rig and maybe, just maybe, lure the core away from Live!/PSN to the Wuu. That'd be one hell of a gamble though. It makes far more sense to be as conservative on Wuu's specs as possible, to strike the best balance between desirability and cost to maximise profits if it succeeds and minimise losses if it fails. And there's no scientific method to gauge that balance. Nintendo just have to sound people out, ask the devs, consult with their suppliers, etc., to come up with a feel for what's right. The only logical argument applicable to the specs is going all-in doesn't make sense when the platform is riding on the tablet. The choice of the tablet means Nintendo have to go with a minimal-weighted balance, starting with the bare minimum and seeing how far they dare stretch.

 

[TheChefO]

As ever, you misunderstand completely what's being said. I didn't say there's no future for a super-powered console, or that there isn't a market for it. I even explained where Nintendo should focus if they do want to go that route. What I did say is there's not much market for this-gen graphics at higher framerates and resolutions. If Wuu is only going to offer moderately perked versions of current gen games, it won't be attracting business from core gamers. Ergo, what's the point in enabling a machine to render MW3 at 1080p if Joe Gamer is happy to play MW3 at <720p when enabling that involves added cost for Nintendo? (That's not a conclusive argument against, but the sort of consideration an intelligent designer/engineer will be pondering.)

Now, repeating myself as you seemed to have missed it last time, if Nintendo decided to create a proper next-gen console to attract the core gamer, then they would see success with a fancy graphics powerhouse. But that same console will only cost more with addition of the tablet that won't be needed for those core gamers, so why bother with the tablet? If Nintendo want to do a core console, it makes little business sense to also incorporate a tablet and try to sell that side of the market, at least in the same one device. Nintendo have decided, rightly or wrongly, to go with the tablet as their strategic approach for their next box. Taking that as fact, the sense in putting in awesome hardware at added cost which isn't going to affect the desirability of the tablet much isn't there. It was the same with Wii - what was the minimum hardware cost Nintendo could go with to enable their business strategy? They could have added better hardware, but if that extra $20 a console costs lead to only 5% added consumer interest/sales, because the draw of waggle was very strong irrespective of graphics performance, then Nintendo would have lost a billion or two dollars.

It's the same designing any product. It'd be nice to offer everything to all people and have the widest appeal, but adding features adds costs. So engineers know to take a set of options (speed, strength, cost) and pick some of them, not all of them. Out of the variables Nintendo has to juggle, they will be deciding around the tablet experience, not the uber-gamer experience. Hence the choice of hardware not being uber-powerful is not at all shocking.

Ignoring the condescending and insulting response, I get what you're saying, and as I said, I strongly disagree with that notion.

It would have been like Sony deciding "ok we really want Bluray in PS3, but the BOM for the BRD alone is $300 and we've already decided the highest acceptable BOM is $400. So team, let's put whatever else we can in that $100 budget".

It's an interface which is already seen in devices everywhere and so the unique "wow factor" that would make people want to buy it on it's own is practically nil.

Now, if they accept that the interface will be an accessory-to-the-main-experience (not the reason to buy the machine) and designed the rest of the machine with the thought of competing with nextgen offerings, they might have a shot.

But trying to wii this thing with competing products that already wii, that's a recipe for failure.


I completely get what your saying with fixed BOM > tab costs x > subtract x from BOM = chip budget. I'm just saying that if that equations chip budget equals ps360 SOC then WiiU == fail.

It's up to Nintendo to decide what that fixed acceptable BOM is. HD7770 should be the baseline of what they're looking for in a GPU. That is, if they are looking to compete nextgen with something other than ipads, iphones, ipod touches, kindle fires, and all of their free to $5 games ...

But maybe that's just the business sense in me talking...

 

[TheChefO]

Oh man

News on some new kind of sensor on the controller.

http://thewiiu.com/topic/2681-nintendo-patent-reveals-environment-sensor-unit-for-wii-u/

This epitomizes the desperate struggle Nintendo finds themselves in. What practical use does this have in games? Same for the vitality sensor idea they had.

I just hope that if/when they go down the Sega road they don't lose their passion for games creation ... but then again that seems to have already started with Miyamoto's one foot out the door and subbing out projects like Metroid.

I seriously can't wrap my head around what happened to all the profit they made from Wii and why it wasn't invested properly.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's up to Nintendo to decide what that fixed acceptable BOM is. HD7770 should be the baseline of what they're looking for in a GPU. That is, if they are looking to compete nextgen with something other than ipads, iphones, ipod touches, kindle fires, and all of their free to $5 games ...

Except the experience will be different - you won't be able to play Mario Galaxies Evolved on iAnything, and people may be willing to spend $60 a pop for that game en masse even if it looks marginally better than what they are seeing on PS360 now. Graphics hardware alone does not make the experience and does not define the value of the system to consumers.

But maybe that's just the business sense in me talking...

Not business sense (business sense wouldn't question the validity in a bare-minimium performance target), but a lack of faith in the tablet. That lack of faith may be justified, but if the tablet proves to be the Next Big Thing in gaming, Nintendo will be laughing all the way to the bank again, with more cash the cheaper their hardware gets. Hence the logic that some refute in targeting lower performance.

 

[Kaotik]

Why are you so obsessed that everything has to be about games?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Why are you so obsessed that everything has to be about games?

I agree with Shifty if you say games are the primairy reason for people to buy a console. Let's be honest here, media functionality of ps360 is pretty gimped. You can buy a ac ryan for 90 euro's and it will play just about every format out there. Even a lot of tv's these days support playback from usb/hdd/network for the most common file formats available for download on the internet. So even if ps4 or x720 would have perfect media playback, which I doubt, especially for sony as they don't have a lot of incentive to make that happen given blu ray I don't see anybody buying a ~400 console for that when maybe their tv already does it for free or they can get a media player for 90 euro's that does the same (and likely better). Internetting/social media on a console isn't somebody cares about either now that just about everybody who is likely to buy a ps720 will already own a smartphone or tablet who are much better at that than a console with a crappy controller for text input.

So the only real reason somebody is going to spend 400 euro's on a console is games.