No he doesn't, he says that "early days Wii U" equals "maximized PS360" (which are quite far ahead of early days PS360), meaning the performance has to be quite a bit higher
Wii U hardware discussion and investigation *rename
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
- Status
Fair point. I didn't notice this line:
Although they won't be starting from scratch if Nintendo are using a standard form of SM3.0/SM4.0 GPU. Still, he says he doesn't see the point in better graphics as he doubts consumers will notice, and he says better performance is bad for devs as they have to put in more work!:Iwata said:
He questions if the next-gen consoles will be powerful enough to be perceptibly different to current-gen. This is all pointing to lower specs, along with the current-gen showing at E3 (720p, 0AA).
Todays machine obviously refers to Wii U, not PS360. The E3 games most likely will be quite a bit better looking (perhaps 720p AA or even 1080p, who knows) on release due reasons already discussed.
The GPU is apparently "almost standard" SM4.1 GPU with a chance of SM5.0 GPU, but the API is their own (though based on OpenGL), just like you have to write your own renderers for PS3 (in theory OpenGL ES, in practice closetometal LibGCM) and XB360 (Direct3D derivative customized API), you have to do it for Wii U too.
The GPU is apparently "almost standard" SM4.1 GPU with a chance of SM5.0 GPU, but the API is their own (though based on OpenGL), just like you have to write your own renderers for PS3 (in theory OpenGL ES, in practice closetometal LibGCM) and XB360 (Direct3D derivative customized API), you have to do it for Wii U too.
as long as sony and ms don't choose to walk down the path of "cheap, affordable, and reliable (no more RROD and stupid things like that) machine", yes i'm afraid consumer will be able to tell the difference.
i think nintendo is taking even more risks with wii u than with wii.
i think nintendo is taking even more risks with wii u than with wii.
Maybe. Not obviously.
But the E3 showings were this gen quality. That's equivalent to the E3 2005 showings for XB360 being the same quality as XBox. XB360 was a clear advance, rendering HD and more complex scenes, even if the hardware wasn't being fully utilised. PS2, the console with almost no dev support at all, managed to render clearly superior visuals to PS1 on its debut even though the hardware was so underutilised.
What you're suggesting is Nintendo have plenty more graphical power than this current generation, enough to compete with Sony and MS's next gen consoles, but cannot show any improvement at all over this generation at E3. That can only be true if the current showings are the least efficient users of console hardware in the history of consoles. So either
1) Nintendo's machine is a nightmare to develop for, worse than PS2 or PS3, or
2) Nnitendo's machine is very capable but developers are making cheap ports (of their console versions and not their PC versions), including Nintendo, and no-one's actually making use of that hardware, or
3) The hardware is not much more capable than the current generation of consoles which is why the games being shown are at the same level. Development of techniques like SM4 specifics versus SM3 will allow better results from Wuu over time, where currently devs are just porting over their existing shaders (although why they don't use their PC SM4 shaders is a good question), but the underlying hardware is otherwise aiming very much for this gen standards.
Or 4) The development started early on Wii, and developers have been using less powerful than final devkits when they've gotten the Wii U devkits, and only had a short while to use final devkits by E3, making the graphics notably worse than final product will have.
that happened with wii, where games were initially developed on GC devkits, and wii itself proved wrong all those that hoped (me included) that nintendo wouldn't simply put together a so called GC 1.5 and call it a day.
i'm not a programmer or a tech expert but, would that make sense if the final hw is totally "brand new"?
from the rumors we got it seems to me that nintendo took a long time to finalize the specs, like they didn't really know how to move and what to do until "the last seconds" with devs not totally aware of how the final hw would perform.
i'm pretty sure everybody is working on orbis and durango already know what they are gonna get with the final dev kits.
Option 4) requires Nintendo to have been working on Wii titles without a plan to introduce new hardware, and then suddenly spring new hardware on their software teams who have struggled to make ports. These devs would be presented with next-gen hardware but be unable to make anything more of it than current-gen hardware. Like I say, Wuu is showing current-gen qualities - the first time in history that next-gen hardware hasn't shown significant improvement over the previous hardware. The only sort of exception to that is Wii, which was last-gen hardware and so that's why it looked like last-gen hardware.
Simultaneously, the 3rd party developers used to working with SM3 and SM4 GPUs, who have console ports running at higher framerates and resolutions on PC, are porting over their PS360 titles without managing to gain anything from Wuu's hardware. The likes of SE and Epic are showing what next-gen engines would be achieving on next-gen hardware (which is current gen PC), while UE3 is enabling games like Batman on multiple devices but showing no improvements on Wuu. And Epic, supporters of potent hardware and champions of iPad for example, have backtracked on saying UE4 isn't coming to Wuu to say they haven't decided. If Wii U was that capable, why aren't Epic behind it the same as other hardware platforms?
I may yet be shocked and surprised, but the explanations for why Wii U isn't showing much to impress are sounding pretty convoluted to me, when the straight-forward explanation is a much easier fit.
Simultaneously, the 3rd party developers used to working with SM3 and SM4 GPUs, who have console ports running at higher framerates and resolutions on PC, are porting over their PS360 titles without managing to gain anything from Wuu's hardware. The likes of SE and Epic are showing what next-gen engines would be achieving on next-gen hardware (which is current gen PC), while UE3 is enabling games like Batman on multiple devices but showing no improvements on Wuu. And Epic, supporters of potent hardware and champions of iPad for example, have backtracked on saying UE4 isn't coming to Wuu to say they haven't decided. If Wii U was that capable, why aren't Epic behind it the same as other hardware platforms?
I may yet be shocked and surprised, but the explanations for why Wii U isn't showing much to impress are sounding pretty convoluted to me, when the straight-forward explanation is a much easier fit.
Past generations have been more brand-new than we'll have now with a continutation of existing SM architecture. PS1 to PS2 was a sea change, but the first showings for PS2 were clearly a massive improvement. Coupled with the rumoured specs, everything is pointing to current-gen performance, resulting in the current-gen looking games we're seeing.
DaSorcerer
Newcomer
Funny, you should mention, that when you can find cases where PC versions of certain games are identical to ps360 conterparts.
At higher resolutions and added AA on superior hardware. I can understand just porting the same assets and not getting the most from the hardware, but when you have a massive abundance of processing power above the requirements of the existing game, you can add AA and framerate at virtually no effort. Or at least should be able to as long as the dev tools aren't crazy-odd! While on the other hand, 1st party titles can be making better use of the hardware.
If we look back at launch ports on XB360, like COD2 of Madden, they weren't a patch on what the hardware is capable of, but they still showed an obviously generational advance. And platform specific gamse like Kameo were obviosuly showcasing next-gen features from the off. We didn't look at XB360 and then PS3 and say to ourselves, "they look like PS2 games, but in a few years they'll be unrecognisably better." It doesn't make sense to me to look at Wuu's games and say, "they look the same as current gen games, but there's really amazing hardware there and games a few years from now will look massively better."
A quick Google says, as of Oct last year, there was nothing planned for Battlefield on Wii U. I'm not finding any articles about Wii U reportedly running FB2. Regardless, when it comes to collecting evidence, what you can see with your own eyes ranks a lot more strongly than uncertain comments.
bgassassin
Regular
The following came from the analyst E3 Q&A. Just adding to what you posted.
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/120606qa/index.html
According to some aurstrian magazine (and Wikipedia), at least Medal of Honor: Warfighter is scheduled for Wii U, and it uses Frostbite 2.
So...because MoH is coming to Wii U, that proves...what? How does that change the interpretation of what's currently been shown? And how Iwata talks about the hardware, especially the most recent open admission that they had other compromises thanks to the touch screen? Do you still believe Wuu has a lot more under the hood, enough to compete with next-gen consoles (assuming they don't do something unconventional), that's just not being shown yet but will appear when the console finally releases?
Not that I disagree that much I just want to modulate your post
Wrt to Nintendo early goals (based on the early leaks we got) (ie get core game on the system), I believe that the goal for Nintendo has indeed nothing to do with Sony or MS next system, Iwata is right on that matter.
But I think the goal for Nintendo should be something like being at the tail end of PC gaming for a few year to comes (2/3 years).
Whereas they are here or not is another matter though.
so it wouldn't make sense.
unless really nintendo sent the 1st model of dev kits still without any idea of what wii u will be hw wise. but that would be too much even for nintendo.
so i'll go with with the more common route of "more capable but not that much more capable".
On the big teams at EA, the core tech group would often work on the slower platform, since they had to work on both platforms anyway. The buk of the engineers worked on whatever was easiest if they were given a choice in the matter.
In an extreme example during development of an XBox/PS2 title, we had to take the XBox devkits away from people to force them to run code on PS2 despite PS2 being the "lead SKU".
With 360/PS3 it's a little less clear cut, the PS3 linker is a lot faster, and IME link times quickly dominate iteration time. Most developers I still talk to doing cross platform stuff, prefer the 360 tools, but reduced iteration time is always a win.
It was just about the "I'm not finding any articles about Wii U reportedly running FB2." part of your post
- Status
