Computer Science Canada

Wii U

Author:  mirhagk [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Wii U

I think it's time somebody said something about it.

What do you guys think?

Personally I believe that it is a pathetic attempt to get back into the market, and it's going to be worse than when they made the 3DS (which wasn't specifically bad, just wasn't any better).

The biggest thing they have going for them is that it's graphics are almost as good as the ones that other consoles that came out 6 years ago. The only thing it has that hasn't been around for 6 years is the new controllers, which while not worse than a regular controller (actually they could be, they look kinda awkward) is really not worth the extra money.

A tiny touch screen to be used in conjuction with a TV kinda doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. It could be cool for certain applications but 99% of the time it'd either be a pain, or be unused.

And if the controller is essentially just a DS, they should just provide the capability to hook up the DS as a controller lol.

EDIT: Also worth discussing is whether Sony and Microsoft will respond.

My guess is that microsoft will not release a new console for a while (unless sony comes up with an actually good idea for a new console). They have been releasing software updates, making the actual product better without having to charge more for it (sony has been doing the same I believe), and this seems to work much better for users, not having to buy new hardware every 2 years. Sony and Microsoft seem to agree on the aspect of don't put out a new system, unless it's actually worth it, whereas Nintendo seems to be following the Apple trend of release a new system every time you think of a new feature.

Author:  Insectoid [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

It's gonna flop, I think. They should have just released an updated Wii with more accurate motion control and better graphics. The new controller looks ridiculous and gimmicky.

Microsoft and Sony won't respond, because they won't need to. I don't think it will take off, lots of people will still be playing the original Wii because there's no real reason to upgrade, so developers will keep developing for the wii and Nintendo's lineup will be even more fragmented than it is. How many handhelds are they supporting right now?

I think next-gen consoles should focus on improving convenience. Ditch disks, reduce loading times and increase framerates. Maybe add additional hardware for physics or something, and increase RAM so it can do more, but controls and graphics-wise I don't think any changes need to be made.

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

It's a fail. If they really wanted to try out the new controller, it could have been released as an add-on for the current version. However, as much as I think it should flop, it won't due to the audiences the Wii currently holds (women, old people, little kids). These areas of the market will keep it running.

The only time I see Sony upgrading the PlayStation line is when a newer medium of holding data gains popularity (PS1: CD, PS2: DVD, PS3: BluRay). The next medium should be hard drives but that won't be happening until the average internet speed around the world jumps significantly and the average internet access per captia also jumps. At this time, we will see a PS and Xbox refresh. Anytime before that would be useless and a method to make money.

Microsoft + Sony don't need to respond to Wii because they still hold the "hardcore" or grown-up audience. In addition, they also have their own innovative technologies to attract new audiences (particularly Microsoft with the Kinect).

Author:  Insectoid [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Quote:
Anytime before that would be useless and a method to make money.


Are you aware that this statement is an oxymoron? Microsoft and Sony exist to make money. If it makes money (and isn't *too* illegal) it's useful.

There will be a refresh probably in 2013/14, weather or not a new storage medium has been developed. The PS3 and 360 will 'feel' old, because people have had them for so long. If it feels old, people will buy a new one. And that is their objective.

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

Insectoid @ Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:24 pm wrote:
Are you aware that this statement is an oxymoron? Microsoft and Sony exist to make money. If it makes money (and isn't *too* illegal) it's useful.
I should have specified more, I meant useless for the consumer, obviously not for the producer. Laughing

Insectoid wrote:

There will be a refresh probably in 2013/14, weather or not a new storage medium has been developed. The PS3 and 360 will 'feel' old, because people have had them for so long. If it feels old, people will buy a new one. And that is their objective.
That is probably true, though the companies do say that they want their products to last 10 years...and the longer the consumer waits, the more they will appreciate (and pay for) a newer product. If there is not a new medium, the refresh would be exactly like the Wii U issue we are discussing here.

Author:  Insectoid [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Why is a refresh necessary? I bought Portal 2 on a CD, just like I bought Quake in the 90's, also on a CD. The medium hasn't changed, except that larger games are on dvds (Portal 2 might be a dvd actually...but still).

I don't see why you need a new medium. It would instantly break PS3 backwards compatibility if it didn't have a disk drive, and Sony wouldn't want to do that for at least a few years. Just because Sony released each of its consoles with a new format, doesn't mean it has to be that way always.

The Super Nintendo used cartridges. So did the 64, and so does every Nintendo handheld ever made (except maybe the more recent models, I've not been following it). Almost all of Nintendo's consoles were successes (A notable exception -the gamecube- was released with a new medium, cd's).

People will not pay more for the new product. The PS3 had very low sales initially, because it was priced so high. Now that it's down in price it's much more popular. You can't blame lack of innovation for it- this console blew the PS2 and xBox out of the water, and even has superior hardware to the 360.

There is no correlation between a new medium and a legitimate next-gen console. Please stop making these claims.

Author:  Dan [ Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Wii U

mirhagk @ 15th August 2011, 12:20 pm wrote:

Personally I believe that it is a pathetic attempt to get back into the market, and it's going to be worse than when they made the 3DS (which wasn't specifically bad, just wasn't any better).


Back in? There leading the both the console and handheld market in sales. The 3DS did not go over as while as nintendo wanted, however they have now lowered the price and will be giving the eraly apodotrs 20 free virutla console games. I have a feeling this price drop, plus many new 3DS titles coming out before christmas this year will save the 3DS.

mirhagk @ 15th August 2011, 12:20 pm wrote:

The biggest thing they have going for them is that it's graphics are almost as good as the ones that other consoles that came out 6 years ago.


The current supposed specs for the Wii U would put it at better graphics then all current consoles, but i think your missing the point. Nintendo has never realy been about graphics, they allways favor qaulity, game play and invitation over the raw specs of there systems.

mirhagk @ 15th August 2011, 12:20 pm wrote:

The only thing it has that hasn't been around for 6 years is the new controllers, which while not worse than a regular controller (actually they could be, they look kinda awkward) is really not worth the extra money.


Thats what they side about the Wii, and it brought about the hole motion based game play revolution and even the PS3 and XBOX are copying it in some form.

mirhagk @ 15th August 2011, 12:20 pm wrote:

A tiny touch screen to be used in conjuction with a TV kinda doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. It could be cool for certain applications but 99% of the time it'd either be a pain, or be unused.


It's hard to judge with out having played one, but i can see alot of possible applications. I think the big issue is weather they will be able to get multiple screen controllers hooked up at once.

mirhagk @ 15th August 2011, 12:20 pm wrote:

And if the controller is essentially just a DS, they should just provide the capability to hook up the DS as a controller lol.


They are.



Insectoid wrote:

It's gonna flop, I think. They should have just released an updated Wii with more accurate motion control and better graphics. The new controller looks ridiculous and gimmicky.

Thats exctactly what the Wii U is. Updated graphics, backwords comptable (including with the old controllers) plus there trying out a new touch screen controller. Games can still use the old montion plus controllers (or even the first gen wii controllers).

Insectoid wrote:

Microsoft and Sony won't respond, because they won't need to. I don't think it will take off, lots of people will still be playing the original Wii because there's no real reason to upgrade, so developers will keep developing for the wii and Nintendo's lineup will be even more fragmented than it is. How many handhelds are they supporting right now?


The last time Microsoft and Sony chose to ignore Nintendo they stole the market place with the Wii and made them look like fools with there copy cat (more so for the PS3) motion offerings years latter. Nintendo has allways followed a simular pattern when releasing consoles and putting a new one out after 6 years is hardly that shocking. As for devlopers, Nintendo allready acounced serveral key devlopers are allready working on games for the Wii U inclduing EA and Ubisoft with games such as Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham City, Tekken, Ghost Recon, Aliens: Colonial Marines, Ninja Gaiden 3 and Battlefield 3.

Insectoid wrote:

I think next-gen consoles should focus on improving convenience. Ditch disks, reduce loading times and increase framerates. Maybe add additional hardware for physics or something, and increase RAM so it can do more, but controls and graphics-wise I don't think any changes need to be made.


I think we need to see innovations in the console market or we will be stuck with limited DRM riden PCs that come with controlers. Simply making them fast and more powerfull each generation is silly as PCs will allways be faster and more felxiable. Console need to provide somthing the PC platform can not if they want to surive. However i will say that your idea of moving from a disk based system could be intresting. A cloud based system like steam on a console could be very intresting and conveient but it also comes with many risks, you can no longer lend games to firends, no longer buy used games or rent games and your hole collection could be wiped out if somthing goes wrong on the providers end.


ProgrammingFun wrote:

It's a fail. If they really wanted to try out the new controller, it could have been released as an add-on for the current version. However, as much as I think it should flop, it won't due to the audiences the Wii currently holds (women, old people, little kids). These areas of the market will keep it running.


There is nothing wrong with targeting the casual market. Personaly I hate most modern FPS so for me the type of games that come out on Nintendo platforms are noramly more apealing. However what Nintendo aims to do with the Wii U is bridge the two markets. They hope to keep the casual market from the Wii while updating the graphics to get the hardcore market. With games like Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham City, Tekken, Ghost Recon, Aliens: Colonial Marines, Ninja Gaiden 3 and Battlefield 3 planed for launch, they very while could acomplish this.

As for the controller, i don't think it is possible with the current Wii specs, which is why they need the hardware upgrade. However even if you hate it (which is a bit premature unless you where at E3 to try it) you can use the old Wii controllers with the Wii U.

I perdiect this thing printing money like the Wii if the controller works and even more if they can get multiple touch screen contorllers working at once.


ProgrammingFun wrote:

The only time I see Sony upgrading the PlayStation line is when a newer medium of holding data gains popularity (PS1: CD, PS2: DVD, PS3: BluRay). The next medium should be hard drives but that won't be happening until the average internet speed around the world jumps significantly and the average internet access per captia also jumps. At this time, we will see a PS and Xbox refresh. Anytime before that would be useless and a method to make money.

Microsoft + Sony don't need to respond to Wii because they still hold the "hardcore" or grown-up audience. In addition, they also have their own innovative technologies to attract new audiences (particularly Microsoft with the Kinect).


Having all your games on your harddrive or a could service has alot of risks and limiations which I pointed out above. I think Sony and Microsoft will be forced to upgrade as they will no longer have the console with the best graphics which for some reason is a big issue with the "hardcore" FPS style gamers out there. They will however be at a great advantage if they wait for the Wii U to come out before upgrading there own systems as they will be able to ensure theres are more powerfull and be able to copy any sucessfull features of the Wii U faster this time :p


[quote="ProgrammingFun"]
Insectoid @ Mon Aug 15, 2011 4:24 pm wrote:
That is probably true, though the companies do say that they want their products to last 10 years...and the longer the consumer waits, the more they will appreciate (and pay for) a newer product. If there is not a new medium, the refresh would be exactly like the Wii U issue we are discussing here.


I don't think any console has gone 10 years with out an upgrade unless there manufacture went out of business or changed direction away from consoles. Nintendo for example:

Wii -> Wii U: 6 years
GameCube -> Wii: 5 years
N64 -> GameCube: 5 years
SNES -> N64: 5 years
NES -> SNES: 6 years

The Wii U is acutatly about 1 year over due.



I think many of you place way to much value in graphics and tehcical specs of a system and not enough in any kind of real innovation. Nintendo is willing to take risks with there systems and some times they pay off like with the Wii, while other times they run in to trouble like with the 3DS (tho they still have time to turn it around). 5 years has prity much been the standard time for a new console lanuch for Nintendo so it seems a bit silly to be surprised that 5 years after the Wii they announce an upgrade.

Author:  Insectoid [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:08 am ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Quote:


Quote:

I think next-gen consoles should focus on improving convenience. Ditch disks, reduce loading times and increase framerates. Maybe add additional hardware for physics or something, and increase RAM so it can do more, but controls and graphics-wise I don't think any changes need to be made.


I think we need to see innovations in the console market or we will be stuck with limited DRM riden PCs that come with controlers. Simply making them fast and more powerfull each generation is silly as PCs will allways be faster and more felxiable.


I didn't say stifle innovation. I just want innovation in the direction of convenience and to make console gaming even more streamlined. Add support to allow developers to easily implement things like level pre-loading to reduce or eliminate loading times. This is my only real example atm, but, I'd like ultimately for the console and its hardware limitations to be invisible during gameplay. I don't want to put a disk in. I don't want to wait for the thing to turn on. I don't want to wait for loading. I don't want to deal with crappy menus (I really dislike the 360's UI), or updates. All of this, should be invisible. I want to be able to pick up a controller, select a game, and start playing.

I really like the PS3's integration into the Bravia line (sync your PS3, TV and sound system via your TV remote. Signals are passed on through hdmi to the target machine). This is an innovation I approve of. It's not perfect yet, but it's the right idea.


As for marketability of the Wii U, I still don't think it will take off. Motion gaming has been around for a while. Tiger Electronics had released standalone motion-control consoles for Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and more before the Wii was even released. I had the LotR one, and it was fun as hell. Motion gaming already had a market, and Nintendo just consolidated it into a single console.

Motion-control with a touch-screen? That's something new. Nintendo is creating this market from scratch. It will take Apple-esque marketing to get this thing going. Nintendo will have to prove that the Wii U is the next-gen console.

Author:  mirhagk [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Wii U

Dan @ Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:35 pm wrote:
Having all your games on your harddrive or a could service has alot of risks and limiations which I pointed out above. I think Sony and Microsoft will be forced to upgrade as they will no longer have the console with the best graphics which for some reason is a big issue with the "hardcore" FPS style gamers out there. They will however be at a great advantage if they wait for the Wii U to come out before upgrading there own systems as they will be able to ensure theres are more powerfull and be able to copy any sucessfull features of the Wii U faster this time :p


People really don't understand graphics nowadays. Graphics in consoles has grown to a point where it is no longer the hardware's fault if graphics are not good, it's the softwares fault. Look at Halo 3, then look at Halo Reach. The difference in graphics between those two games is WAY more then anything else.

Also how do you know that the Wii has better graphics? All Nintendo said was that it would definetly be able to compete with Xbox 360 and PS3, and if you are going off of what the demo showed, well that WAS Xbox 360 and PS3 graphics.

Honestly I see the touch screen as ending up like the kinect for 360 and the move for PS3, something that's extra that's there, but gets in the way of serious gaming. Considering the fact they are trying to target the hardcore market, they are providing the wrong thing for it. And innovation is not always neccassary, I'm sorry but really what did the 360 and PS3 offer other than a better version of what there already was (yes PS3 offered blu-ray, but the seller for more people was simply just a better system).

And the game line-up for the Wii U is old news, we've played these games before (most of them that is), so why buy an entirely new system to play the same game, except this time you can interact with a couple things via touchscreen.

If you guys think that the touchscreen is going to be used a lot, thing about this, they give you essentially Xbox360/PS3 controllers with a touchscreen in the middle. And the touchscreen has a stylus. Do you really think that you can use the controller and the touchscreen at the same time? For most games the screen will be for minigames.

Author:  Dan [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

Insectoid @ 16th August 2011, 6:08 am wrote:

I didn't say stifle innovation. I just want innovation in the direction of convenience and to make console gaming even more streamlined. Add support to allow developers to easily implement things like level pre-loading to reduce or eliminate loading times. This is my only real example atm, but, I'd like ultimately for the console and its hardware limitations to be invisible during gameplay. I don't want to put a disk in. I don't want to wait for the thing to turn on. I don't want to wait for loading. I don't want to deal with crappy menus (I really dislike the 360's UI), or updates. All of this, should be invisible. I want to be able to pick up a controller, select a game, and start playing.

I really like the PS3's integration into the Bravia line (sync your PS3, TV and sound system via your TV remote. Signals are passed on through hdmi to the target machine). This is an innovation I approve of. It's not perfect yet, but it's the right idea.


But none of that has any real effect on game play or even warents a consoles existence when compaired to the PC alternative. Innovations in terms of making consoles more streamlined and easier to devlope for are greate but they all allready be done on the PC for years in most cases (in the last few years i don't think i have bought any software on a disk and it has all been downloaded once bought), so your innovations in this area would just be making consoles more like PCs but lagging serveral years behind.

What the market needs is inovative game play, we don't need 1000 more versions of call of duty but with faster consoles that are sightly more easy to devlope for and use.

Quote:

As for marketability of the Wii U, I still don't think it will take off. Motion gaming has been around for a while. Tiger Electronics had released standalone motion-control consoles for Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and more before the Wii was even released. I had the LotR one, and it was fun as hell. Motion gaming already had a market, and Nintendo just consolidated it into a single console.


If we want to go that far, Nintendo has been doing motion controls since the NES with the power glove, ROB, that duck hunt gun and other controllers.

Quote:

Motion-control with a touch-screen? That's something new. Nintendo is creating this market from scratch. It will take Apple-esque marketing to get this thing going. Nintendo will have to prove that the Wii U is the next-gen console.


They did not have to prove the Wii was the "the next-gen console" to sell the most consoles. I think it is rather easy to see how the Wii U could be very successful, they have the casual gamers hooked from the Wii and will get some share of the hard core market with the graphics update and more "hardcore" game line up at launch (i allready listed some of the planed games in another post). If the price is right i don't think casual gamers will have a problem upgrading consdering the Wii U will be fully backwords compatable including full support of the Wii accessories, no need to buy any more controlers (unless of course more then one motion controller can be hooked up).

Also being first to the market in the next generation has some advantages, since there hardware will be more powerfull for a short time, they will get a larger share of the devlopers looking for a system with powerfull graphics to push out there "hardcore" games. In this short time it is possible that they could suck in enough gamers that value graphics that a large share of the hardcore market will have Wii Us in turn convcing more developers to make hardcore Wii U games, getting more gamers, and so on.

I think the key factors that will determine if the Wii U sells is the price (keep it at the Wii price or cheaper), the online game play (no more firends codes, and free online play), if can get multiple motion controllers hooked up, how well the montion controlellers work (tho the reports from E3 where postive) and how soon Microsoft and Sony lanuch a new console. Noramly the lanuch game line up is what screwes nintendo over (e.g. as was the case with the 3DS) however they seem to have there shit togher in terms of a 3rd party line up for the Wii U.

Author:  Insectoid [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:30 am ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Quote:
we've played these games before (most of them that is), so why buy an entirely new system to play the same game


Lol. Nintendo has been rehashing the same games since the NES. What was the last game franchise Nintendo came up with? Mario and Donkey Kong are older than I am. There's a mario kart for every system since the snes. People bought it anyway, and they still will.

Quote:
innovation is not always neccassary, I'm sorry but really what did the 360 and PS3 offer other than a better version of what there already was


The original xBox and the PS2 couldn't render the graphics that the artists could draw. The 360/PS3 nearly can, and the next-gen consoles certainly will, because they'll have 2010+ hardware. Current PC hardware can render graphics that artists don't have the time to draw. Look at Battlefield 3. That's damn impressive, and that runs on current hardware.
Microsoft and Sony want to release a new console (to make money). They can't very well just sell hardware that no game will ever fully take advantage of. There has to be something new and exciting to convince people to buy it.

Imagine the public reaction if the PS4's tagline was "It only does everything the PS3 did". Nobody would buy it.

Author:  Dan [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 7:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Wii U

Sorry for the double post, did not see your post when i posted mirhagk.

mirhagk @ 16th August 2011, 7:09 am wrote:

People really don't understand graphics nowadays. Graphics in consoles has grown to a point where it is no longer the hardware's fault if graphics are not good, it's the softwares fault. Look at Halo 3, then look at Halo Reach. The difference in graphics between those two games is WAY more then anything else.


This is only true to an limited extent. The first generation of games on a new console do noramly have worse graphics then the last generation on the same console (a greate example on the SNES was Mario World vs. Mario RPG, or on the gamecube wind waker vs twilight princess) as devlopers learn how far they can push the system and how most enfiently code for them. However there are limits. There is no way you could be runing games like Fallout, Crysis, etc on a Wii with the same level of graphics. I am a Wii fan but even i would not way the Wii's graphics could be as good as the 360 or PS3 with just better software.


Quote:

Also how do you know that the Wii has better graphics? All Nintendo said was that it would definetly be able to compete with Xbox 360 and PS3, and if you are going off of what the demo showed, well that WAS Xbox 360 and PS3 graphics.


It was satated at E3 they would be, and i am not going off the demo you are refuring too (tho there where real Wii U demos focusing on graphics, the zelda tech demo and the bird one). And honestly why would they not be? There hole push with the Wii U is to hit the HD and hardcore market and it will be trival to upgraded the graphics with 6 years of advaments in graphics thechogly. The only trick is making it not unresonable price wise. I don't think it is an exporandary claim by any means that a console company that has been devloping consoles since the 80s could put out a console today with better graphics then a console reasled in 2005 (xbox 360).


Quote:

Honestly I see the touch screen as ending up like the kinect for 360 and the move for PS3, something that's extra that's there, but gets in the way of serious gaming. Considering the fact they are trying to target the hardcore market, they are providing the wrong thing for it.


It's hard to say either way with out trying it. I would have not though the wii mote would have been greate for FPS style game play when i first hured about it and did not think it would make such a greate mouse for a TV. Now i wish my media center had one (yes i know there are drivers to do this on a PC).

Having played many Wii games, i don't think the controls get in the way at with one very big condition, that devlopers do not try to force you to do lame motions with the Wii mote that are totaly out of place. Games like twilight princess, and super smash brothers are good examples. Mario kart is also a good example in letting the player pick what kind of controls they want to use. That game supperted everything from crazy using the Wii mote as a steering wheel to using a clasic game cube controler. The key is blance and only using motion controls when they add somthing to the game or make it easier to play.


Quote:

And innovation is not always neccassary, I'm sorry but really what did the 360 and PS3 offer other than a better version of what there already was (yes PS3 offered blu-ray, but the seller for more people was simply just a better system).


This is why i don't have a PS3 or 360 when i have a PC.


Quote:

And the game line-up for the Wii U is old news, we've played these games before (most of them that is), so why buy an entirely new system to play the same game, except this time you can interact with a couple things via touchscreen.


Of the games i blive only Batman: Arkham City and possibly Assassin's Creed are ports of currently resleased games. Also the point was that they have the attnetion of 3rd party devlopers and it is not longer going to be games either come out of 360 and PS3 or Wii but that they can come out on all 3 now (but with better graphics of the Wii U, assuming my asumption is correct). Also you are forget (or ignoring) Nintendos vast IP collection which they are more then willing to use. You can almost be certian that there will be a new Zelda, Mario Kart, Smash Brothers, Mario platfromer, Animal Corssing, etc for the Wii U and only the Wii U. A FPS metorid game with online game play could be admazing on the Wii U.

As consoles become more and more like PCs we are going to be seeing games coming out on multiple platforms, which is why i think invoation is imporant if consoles are going to surive. To use your same arugment, why buy an 360 or PS3 when i allready have a more powerfull PC and many of the games I like come out on all 3 (PS3, 360, PC)? The only things holding the PC back is exclusive titles and costing more.

Quote:

If you guys think that the touchscreen is going to be used a lot, thing about this, they give you essentially Xbox360/PS3 controllers with a touchscreen in the middle. And the touchscreen has a stylus. Do you really think that you can use the controller and the touchscreen at the same time? For most games the screen will be for minigames.


You can see good examples of this kind of setup on the DS, DSi and 3DS. However it's not just a touch screen in a controller, it also has AR (augmented reality) and accelerometer capablities. If you saw some of the tech demos at E3 you could see the use as basicly a window into the game in your hands. Think of a wii zapper (gun controler basicly) with a screen on it that changes based on where you are aiming. Tho it does remain to be seen how devlopers will use it and if it will be worth it.

Author:  Dan [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

Insectoid @ 16th August 2011, 7:30 am wrote:

Lol. Nintendo has been rehashing the same games since the NES. What was the last game franchise Nintendo came up with? Mario and Donkey Kong are older than I am. There's a mario kart for every system since the snes. People bought it anyway, and they still will.


They have been rehashing the same characters since before the NES, however it would be silly to say the same games or that there game play is identical. PreNES donkey is nothing like the SNES donkeykong games which are nothing like the N64 games. Simluarly games like mario kart, mario rpg, mario glaxy, mario etc, all have mario but none of them are even in the same genre of game. Also if you look into it, it is about 1 new Zelda game, Mario platformer, Mario kart, etc per console, which is about 5-6 year time span. To be fair XBOX has only been through 2 generations and playstation 3, while nintendo has been through at least 5 (depending on what consoles you count), so Nintendo has a much longer history. If you look at games franchies like Halo, call of duty, etc they acuatatly have a greater number of realses per year then any of the nintendo characters, nintendo has just been around for a shorter time. Wait till XBOX is on there 5th console and see how many Halo games there are.

Author:  mirhagk [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

Dan @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:20 am wrote:
Wait till XBOX is on there 5th console and see how many Halo games there are.


My hope is that they won't get to 5th gen for a while. To me it seems like the average gamer is getting a little bit smarter/cautious about buying things, so releasing a console for releasing a console's sake won't really get them as far. Honestly there is not a huge need for a better system, I would like to point out that COD's graphics probably could be done on the Wii (if the wii supported HD that is), it would just take more development time.

Modern day programming has progressed from runtime effiecency to creation effiecency, so as engines for the same machine get older and older the graphics/physics/sound can keep getting better, without needing new hardware. Yes new hardware might make it easier, but for the past 6 years the graphics and physics and AI have gotten better and better without any sign of slowing down. Look at the upcoming Skyrim. That engine is surely a great deal better than their previous engine (not just in the elder scrolls). I personally believe that we have a long way to go before the system's capabilities are truly maxxed out (considering PS3 supposedly has better theoritical graphics, yet these graphics have never been utilized).

Author:  Dan [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

mirhagk @ 16th August 2011, 12:35 pm wrote:
Honestly there is not a huge need for a better system, I would like to point out that COD's graphics probably could be done on the Wii (if the wii supported HD that is), it would just take more development time.


To support HD it would need a hardware upgrade, Nintendo is not limiting it to 420p for fun.

Quote:

Modern day programming has progressed from runtime effiecency to creation effiecency, so as engines for the same machine get older and older the graphics/physics/sound can keep getting better, without needing new hardware. Yes new hardware might make it easier, but for the past 6 years the graphics and physics and AI have gotten better and better without any sign of slowing down. Look at the upcoming Skyrim. That engine is surely a great deal better than their previous engine (not just in the elder scrolls). I personally believe that we have a long way to go before the system's capabilities are truly maxxed out (considering PS3 supposedly has better theoritical graphics, yet these graphics have never been utilized).


No mater how good graphics, physics and AI algorthims get, they are not going to make P = NP. And if some how P is equal to NP i am going to be more woried about by bank accounts and servers then console hardware.

As for your skyrim example, it is falwed, just look at the recomened system specs for the games. The newer game is clearly taking advantage of advances in PC hardware.

As for the Wii, which this topic is about, it desperatly needs an hardware update to support HD. The console is losing out on many 3rd party cross platfrom games becues it is lacking in the graphics deparment. Personaly i don't care about graphics, but devlopers do.

Author:  mirhagk [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

Dan @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:24 pm wrote:
To support HD it would need a hardware upgrade, Nintendo is not limiting it to 420p for fun.

No they're not, but what I'm saying is that the game/software would be able to produce the image, the console would just not be able to display it.
Dan @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:24 pm wrote:
No mater how good graphics, physics and AI algorthims get, they are not going to make P = NP. And if some how P is equal to NP i am going to be more woried about by bank accounts and servers then console hardware.

I'm not saying that games can trend towards better game engines without better hardware indefinetly, I'm just saying we have some time before we reach our limit.
Dan @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:24 pm wrote:
As for your skyrim example, it is falwed, just look at the recomened system specs for the games. The newer game is clearly taking advantage of advances in PC hardware.

Maybe the PC version, but the Xbox 360 version still has amazing advancements to the engine, without any new hardware.
Dan @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:24 pm wrote:
As for the Wii, which this topic is about, it desperatly needs an hardware update to support HD. The console is losing out on many 3rd party cross platfrom games becues it is lacking in the graphics deparment. Personaly i don't care about graphics, but devlopers do.

It's not just the graphics department they are lacking in, it's an overall speed problem. The 360 and PS3 are faster systems then the Wii, so developers don't need to worry about optimizing certain algorithms/operations since the machine can handle it just fine. The Wii however would either be unable to do it, or take too long to.

Oh and just to call out your P=NP point, you cannot possibly argue that an algorithm cannot make P=NP. That entire point is invalid, for if you could argue that, then you could prove P!=NP and you'd be a couple million dollars richer, as well as probably being one of the most respected computer scienctists of the decade (possibly century)

Author:  Dan [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

mirhagk @ 16th August 2011, 3:35 pm wrote:

Oh and just to call out your P=NP point, you cannot possibly argue that an algorithm cannot make P=NP. That entire point is invalid, for if you could argue that, then you could prove P!=NP and you'd be a couple million dollars richer, as well as probably being one of the most respected computer scienctists of the decade (possibly century)


I think you need to reread what i worte.


Edit: to clarify, no i am not saying that P=NP and i am not saying P!=NP, i am saying for your arugment to be valid, that small optimizations to game engiones could some how keep pace with advancdments in hardware, that P would have to be equal to NP and that the there would have to be great advenments in algrothim theory which lower the time compley of most algortithms used in the game engion. However it is failry safe to assume that P != NP, no it's not proven and could be wrong, but it's an asumption that the magority of our current seucrity based on moder cryptoghery is based on which is why i stated that i would have bigger issues realting to bank account (secured with pubicly key encryption via SSL) and my servers (also using public key enecryption).

Do you realy think i don't know that P vs NP is an open problem?

Author:  mirhagk [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

I know what you meant Dan, I was going off of what you wrote:

Dan @ Tue Aug 16, 2011 2:24 pm wrote:
No mater how good graphics, physics and AI algorthims get, they are not going to make P = NP.


You cannot argue that, you could say it's unlikely, which is definetly true, but you cannot say they are not going to make P=NP no matter how good those algorithms get.

And yes alot of algorithms are limited by their complexity, but their are things that you can do to get around that.

If searching a database for duplicates involved checking every item against every other item (NP unless I'm mistaken) then life would be more difficult. However we can sort the database beforehand, and keep a cache of that search, we can easily check back later for duplicates at any point with a simply linear algorithm.

The same is true for game engines, yes a lot of decision making algorithms for AI are non-linear, however there are ways to fake intelligence, or perhaps cache decisions to make things run faster.

Algorithms may not get better, but use of those algorithms certainly has room for improvement.

Author:  Dan [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

mirhagk @ 16th August 2011, 4:27 pm wrote:
I know what you meant Dan, I was going off of what you wrote:


That would be a straw man then. Why are you trying to aruge aginsted a point i never intened to make and i clearly calrified in my last post? It does not move the debate forword, it does not make your points more valid, it just wastes time and makes you look silly for using a logical fallacy.

I will admit i could have worded it better, but you knew what i meant, and i think most peoleop reading it did too.

Author:  mirhagk [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Which is why I just through it as a PS kind of thing at the end of my post, I only responded to it cuz you said I needed to reread it, as if the statement still stood or something, but I always had it as a side thing, focusing on the actual point the entire time. So instead of arguing just that, you could've easily chosen to progress the conversation.

So did you want to respond to my point that even if P!=NP you can still improve games?

Author:  Dan [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

mirhagk @ 16th August 2011, 4:42 pm wrote:

So did you want to respond to my point that even if P!=NP you can still improve games?


Not sure if it is much of a new point. Yes you can improve games with opmizations just to the software. I admited as much in other posts where i gave examples of Mario World vs Mario RPG on the SNES and the Zelda games on the game cube. However i feel this is mostly due to devlopers learning how to push every last bit out of there hardware and devlopment studios getting more time and money to work on the games then they had on the console launch titles. Also i think that such optimizations will never be able to keep up with the advances in hardware with out some unforseen break through (which is possible your right, but rather unlikely).

You also have to rember that PC hardware is not stoping while consoles wait 5 years for an upgrade, if consoles want to stay even some what current with PC graphcis they are going to have to upgrade. There has been a masive amount of advancment in the last 10 years. Youtube was only founded in 2005, and the game cube came out in 2001. If we went 10 years with out a console upgrade we would still be playing gamecube, the first Xbox, and PlayStation 2. I don't think even you are cliaming that those consoles could handel todays games with a few software optmizations.

Author:  mirhagk [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:11 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

I am not claiming that, but what I am claiming is that we have grown to a point where graphics are no longer neccassary or sometimes even desired past a certain point, except for some PC gamers (myself included somewhat) to push their machine, or to show off how good it is.

I am happy with Halo 3/COD 4 graphics for everything, and I'm sure most people would be satisfied if game graphics never got much past that point (considering that even those graphics take insane amounts of time spent on artwork, taking up arguably the biggest chunk of the budget for something that is only a minor issue in games).

The limiting factor on popular games such as Halo and COD are not within the hardware, or even within the software. The biggest limiting factor we have is the network. And yes we can improve that in certain errors, but people are always going to have crappy connections, and even best case scenario provides terribly slow connections between countries.

Author:  Insectoid [ Tue Aug 16, 2011 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Quote:

I am not claiming that, but what I am claiming is that we have grown to a point where graphics are no longer neccassary or sometimes even desired past a certain point, except for some PC gamers (myself included somewhat) to push their machine, or to show off how good it is.

I am happy with Halo 3/COD 4 graphics for everything, and I'm sure most people would be satisfied if game graphics never got much past that point (considering that even those graphics take insane amounts of time spent on artwork, taking up arguably the biggest chunk of the budget for something that is only a minor issue in games).


I'm pretty sure we all agree on this. Why are you still discussing it?

Quote:
The limiting factor on popular games such as Halo and COD are not within the hardware, or even within the software. The biggest limiting factor we have is the network. And yes we can improve that in certain errors, but people are always going to have crappy connections, and even best case scenario provides terribly slow connections between countries.


I play those games just fine without any internet connection at all. Some of my favorite games are single-player only. As for multiplayer, I play Cod4 on european servers just fine, as well as my Source games. Anyway, this entire argument is completely pointless, because neither the software developers or hardware designers can do anything about it.

Author:  mirhagk [ Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:28 am ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Insectoid you missed the point of my post. I know they can't do anything about it, that's my point. My point is that there isn't that much to improve on. There isn't a whole lot a system can do to make it better, which is why I'm saying the current gen of xbox and playstation will last a while yet.

Author:  Insectoid [ Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:33 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that, because there is one thing they can't fix, they won't release a new version? By that logic we'd all still be running Win XP and OS 9 (and whatever version the linux kernal was at the time).

Author:  mirhagk [ Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

No not at all, you need to read my posts a little harder I think. I literally stated my point

mirhagk @ Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:28 am wrote:
My point is that there isn't that much to improve on.


What I'm saying is since consoles only run one thing at a time, and since those games are already running at cutting edge graphics, there isn't a whole lot to improve on.

Yes they could have a more powerful processor, but most games don't max out the CPU (lag in games is always either because of hard drive/disc drive waiting times, or internet connection issues). (Besides they are already 3.2GHZ tri-cores in 360's, with 6 threads total)

Yes they could add more RAM, but on a machine which runs a very minimal OS, and a single program, memory is nowhere near as scarce as on CPU's. This can be shown by the fact that the machine is cutting edge on everything, but both only have 512mb of ram (with the PS3 taking half of that for video memory). And honestly the reason it'd go above that is because producers are obsessed with wasting their money on insane artwork.

Yes they could add a faster harddrive, but putting in an SSD would not decrease the load times on everything (some games are smart enough to use the hard drive as a cache, such as halo, but most games simply load everything off of the disc, so this would only improve downloaded games, which take up ALOT of space) And if they put in even a 64gb SSD, that'd make them cost $120 extra minimum, and it'd only be enough room for 6 downloaded full games.

Yes they could add a better graphics card, but again why? Any one who is that serious about graphics games on PC's, so having a better graphics card is just going to make them cost more, without giving the consumers anything extra. (And also it'd double the price of the games in order to get artwork good enough to take advantage of the better graphics cards).

So honestly where are the improvements to go? Nintendo keeps coming up with gimmicks for it's improvements, and yes a lot do work, but some are going to crash and burn, and all of them so far can be applied to PS3 and Xbox 360 with a new controller and a software update. (if xbox and playstation do copy Wii U's controller, they won't need to develop a new system, they just need to make the controller USB capable).

So I see only 2 areas to improve the system, 1 is by adding more RAM, which doesn't seem neccassary (if the PS3 can run off of 256mb then I'm sure they are fine), and 2 is by upgrading the graphics cards, which again isn't really needed, and will end up with more expensive games.

Rather I think the systems could better focus their time on their "OS" to create a better interface for the user, adding more features to the console without charging us a single penny. (Xbox 360 at least can live without upgrading systems ever, since they charge for online, and therefore have a reason to make sure people keep playing)

I would love to hear what you would put in the next gen of consoles if you were designing them, and the reason behind it. And then when you do put together the dream console, I'll calculate the price, and let you know whether it's plausible or not.

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

mirhagk @ Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:01 pm wrote:
I would love to hear what you would put in the next gen of consoles if you were designing them, and the reason behind it. And then when you do put together the dream console, I'll calculate the price, and let you know whether it's plausible or not.

Sorry for the mindless troll but check this out...just saying Razz
Seriously though, I would be impressed if they added abilities to multitask on consoles (hence needing more RAM/CPU) but that would just make it more of a PC so I guess that argument isn't really valid.

Author:  mirhagk [ Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Multitasking on consoles isn't really neccassary. What could you do on consoles that you wouldn't just quit and use either your phone/ipod or your computer?

Playing video games, watching movies, maybe listening to music, but I would NOT want to surf the web (possibly youtube but even that I'd use my computer for).

So what would be multitasked? You can pause a video and play a game, pause that and go back to the video? Well videos can be paused without needing multitasking, simply save the current time to a small piece of ram, or harddrive. And if your going to interrupt video games for a video, likely your going to want to save the game anyways.

My whole point here is that there is no feature they could come out with that would make a new system better/worth it. Yes some people would buy a new console for the sake of having a new console, but it'd make their market split (and I'm sure playstation doesn't want to keep making games for 3 different generations)

Author:  Insectoid [ Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:22 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

The market wouldn't split. Sony and Microsoft would just drop support for the old consoles. When did the last PS2 or Xbox game come out?

When people realize that the next Quake won't run on a PS3 they'll upgrade.

Author:  mirhagk [ Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:23 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

http://ps2.gamezone.com/products/new_releases Does that answer? As of last year PS2 was still a huge market. Other than north america, a lot of people saw no reason to upgrade. Yes they could drop support for the older models, but chances are game makers will still want to support it if they can.

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

mirhagk @ Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:23 pm wrote:
http://ps2.gamezone.com/products/new_releases Does that answer? As of last year PS2 was still a huge market. Other than north america, a lot of people saw no reason to upgrade. Yes they could drop support for the older models, but chances are game makers will still want to support it if they can.

Not to mention that my local Dollarama carries PS2 games...

Author:  Insectoid [ Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

mirhagk @ Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:23 pm wrote:
http://ps2.gamezone.com/products/new_releases Does that answer? As of last year PS2 was still a huge market. Other than north america, a lot of people saw no reason to upgrade. Yes they could drop support for the older models, but chances are game makers will still want to support it if they can.


Touch

Author:  mirhagk [ Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

But seriously. If a game company said "Hey you can play crysis 3 on full graphics on this new $800 system (which would be hella cheap), or you can play on minimum graphics on your current machine" How many of you would actually upgrade? And there is no reason why they can't support worse graphics modes, since they have to do it for low end PC's anyways. Releasing a game for the Xbox 720 and the Xbox 360 would cost the developers only a fraction more, and would provide them with a huge market of people who didn't want to/couldn't afford to upgrade.

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

mirhagk @ Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:45 pm wrote:
But seriously. If a game company said "Hey you can play crysis 3 on full graphics on this new $800 system (which would be hella cheap), or you can play on minimum graphics on your current machine" How many of you would actually upgrade? And there is no reason why they can't support worse graphics modes, since they have to do it for low end PC's anyways. Releasing a game for the Xbox 720 and the Xbox 360 would cost the developers only a fraction more, and would provide them with a huge market of people who didn't want to/couldn't afford to upgrade.
But when Crysis 2 supported older PCs with DX9, there was community outrage. Therefore, Crysis 3 will only go DX11, which would mean (for PC) newer models would be needed. Same thing would occur on consoles, I believe that AAAs like Crysis would be funded by Sony/Microsoft to only support the latest console. This would also be true for all exclusives controlled by the manufacturing company.

Author:  mirhagk [ Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Okay then let's say that next gen video games are too powerful to even support medium end PC's. So how much would it cost to build a machine to run Crysis 3? Subtract that cost by at most 20% and there's your cost for a new console. Even if they stop making games for 7th gen, people will probably spend that money getting a computer instead.

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

mirhagk @ Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:58 pm wrote:
Okay then let's say that next gen video games are too powerful to even support medium end PC's. So how much would it cost to build a machine to run Crysis 3? Subtract that cost by at most 20% and there's your cost for a new console. Even if they stop making games for 7th gen, people will probably spend that money getting a computer instead.
I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence. However, the case of Crysis 3 and DX11 cannot be compared to consoles. Developers push the limits on PC because they are partnered with firms such as nVidia which also need to sell new video cards. This is not the case with consoles unless a newer version is released. Developers can't break limits on consoles because that would not make the game work. Instead, they will scale down games to accommodate consoles. A large example is BF3, which now also features static maps because consoles can't handle all that destruction, or the lower console player count.
The reason console gamers will prefer a newer console over a newer PC is community and blind following. I remember having to visit one of a family friend once because their son couldn't properly set up his new Xbox. His parents were annoyed at the amount of games he wanted. However, when I told his parents about the possibility of gaming on their PC (and showed them Steam), he got really pissed off because he wanted to play with his friends, and they were all on Xbox.

Author:  mirhagk [ Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:00 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Yes this is true, people do blindly follow sometimes, but if the consoles were to get better, they'd cost so much that they wouldn't really be worth it to the general public unless they were truly amazing (requiring them to cost even more and more).

If all my friends had PS4 I may considering upgrading, but if only one kid is rich/dumb/hipster enough to update, I don't believe it'd affect everyone to update.

Basically if an 8th gen came out (minus the Wii U), the companies would be gambling the profits on people's stupidity rather than any actual reason.

Oh and the final reason why xbox 360 won't upgrade for a long time: The sale of consoles is non-profit for the company, they actually lose money off of it, they just make it back through games. So I microsoft and playstation can keep selling games without having to upgrade the consoles, they will do that.

People don't remember that point, but it's the most true, the consoles are NOT the money makers, it's the games. (and they'd rather have me spend my $500 on games than a new console)

EDIT: I actually think this article will settle the argument about any new consoles for a while. Mind you this was back in 2007 so when they said 2013, it was a date ridiculously in the future. Now that date seems not so far off, and they still don't NEED to update, so their going to keep pumping the 360 for a WHILE longer.

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2007/03/13/next-xbox-720-to-launch-in-2011-2012-according-to-microsoft.htm

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:25 am ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Consoles are not non-profit for every company, as far as I know, that was only the case for Sony, who sold the PS3 at a loss until the slim model was released. Companies do, and will make money off of consoles. I also think that new consoles should come out only if there is some amazing feature in the market but Sony/Microsoft could still force you to upgrade by dropping all support for older models (and gaining a lot of bad PR), though I agree that this probably won't work for current-gen systems. I hypothesize that the 7th gen of Micro-sony will only last until about 2015 at which time they will find some excuse to upgrade.

On another note, this is regarding the RAM question of current (and close future) gen cosoles.

Author:  mirhagk [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:45 am ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

If you read into the article, Xbox lost an insane amount of money during they launch, because they are forced to produce many consoles as quickly as possible, which increases the cost. Yes eventually they start earning money off of them, but not at the begginning

Also on the subject of ram, crytek is retarded:

http://www.vg247.com/2011/04/16/crytek-would-like-to-see-a-minimum-8gb-of-ram-in-next-batch-of-consoles/

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

mirhagk @ Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:45 am wrote:
If you read into the article, Xbox lost an insane amount of money during they launch, because they are forced to produce many consoles as quickly as possible, which increases the cost. Yes eventually they start earning money off of them, but not at the begginning

Also on the subject of ram, crytek is retarded:

http://www.vg247.com/2011/04/16/crytek-would-like-to-see-a-minimum-8gb-of-ram-in-next-batch-of-consoles/

Of course, the primary objective is, like you said, to sell games.

As for crytek, they are very retarted in terms of programming and have no idea how efficient code actually works. There are many other amazing looking games that aren't as hardware intensive as Crytek, the most recent example being Battlefield 3. Sure Crysis looks amazing, but do the really need 8GB of RAM? I have no idea what they're going to do with that much ram other than spending even less time making efficient code.

Author:  Insectoid [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:25 am ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Mirhagk, everything ever manufactured lost a lot of money at the start and either made it back later or didn't. You can't make money off something until it's manufactured. Manufacturing costs money. By your logic, nothing is made with a profit in mind, and every time some product makes money it's a big surprise.

As for your link- I have thought before that crytek uses hardware as an excuse to not optimize their games much. Thanks for the confirmation. This does bring about one benefit of writing code for consoles (which programmingfun touched upon): Developers are forced to push the envelope and write creative code to accomplish more. Should we gimp our hardware for this? No, but we should push the existing hardware to do as much as possible.

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

Insectoid @ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:25 am wrote:
Mirhagk, everything ever manufactured lost a lot of money at the start and either made it back later or didn't. You can't make money off something until it's manufactured. Manufacturing costs money. By your logic, nothing is made with a profit in mind, and every time some product makes money it's a big surprise.

Things are made with profit in mind, but to start off, the costs of production are higher than the price being sold at, which allow the console to gain popularity. This gives companies a loss in the beginning as many people adopt the console. Later on, the companies lower the costs because they already established community for the particular console will still drive sales for newer consoles as more people want to join the community. They are now free-er to take away features (such as PS3 Old vs Slim or PSP 1000 vs everything after).

Insectoid wrote:

As for your link- I have thought before that crytek uses hardware as an excuse to not optimize their games much. Thanks for the confirmation. This does bring about one benefit of writing code for consoles (which programmingfun touched upon) Developers are forced to push the envelope and write creative code to accomplish more. Should we gimp our hardware for this? No, but we should push the existing hardware to do as much as possible.
Sadly, this isn't the case for PCs as developers, especially those partnered with nVidia or AMD, will continue to push over the edge so those companies can make more money off of newer hardware. For example, I fail to understand why Black Ops, made from the same engine as Modern Warfare, "requires" a quad-core CPU to run.

Author:  DemonWasp [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

ProgrammingFun @ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:59 am wrote:
... I fail to understand why Black Ops, made from the same engine as Modern Warfare, "requires" a quad-core CPU to run.


I would assume that larger, more detailed models, more detailed physics, better AI or (slightly) updated graphics are all reasonable causes. Then again, it's also very possible that they just made it slower, either on purpose or by accident.

Author:  mirhagk [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

My point was not that they wouldn't make money, my point was that in order to make money they'd have to lose some at the beginning to get that popularity. If they can just keep marketing games and hardware such as kinect to us, then there is no need to lose those profits. Am I saying they won't ever decide to get losses in order for long term profits? No, I'm just saying they are likely to bleed this generation of all possible value before moving on (Such as what happens with game franchises, *cough* 6th halo FPS coming out *cough* halo 1 being rereleased *cough*).

Also I agree that a unified hardware model pushes developers to learn the system, and how to use/abuse it. That's why we still have a long way to go in terms of developers utilizing the machines before they are bled dry.

Also I was under the impression that Black ops was not done by the same company, let alone the same engine, although I could be wrong. If it was a different company, there's your answer right there.

I also look at my 2 year old PC, and compare it to my Xbox 360, and I'm sorry but in raw computing power my PC kicks it's ass, yet it has not even a quarter of the gaming capacity (even though it has more ram, more expensive/new video card (with more dedicated video memory than the xbox has total memory), and a great processor.

(My PC is not a gaming PC, just a run of the mill computer, with a low end graphics card at that time)

So how does that work? Maybe unified hardware is a solution to our problems? Maybe having an interface/system that allows for expansions without changing the way it works might be better? I dunno, but this is why I hate when console-like devices get updated or redone and the same software is provided for both without any way of determining whether the machine can really run it (*cough* iPod/iPone *cough*)

Author:  Insectoid [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

I'd like to see an open-source game-oriented operating system released (or alternate firmware for existing consoles). Without major backing from an established corporation though it wouldn't work.

Something like Android, for dedicated gaming machines. You've got your xBox and your PS3 to provide a system that 'just works' (like the iPhone, consoles are restricted to streamline the experience). And then you'd have this open-source alternative which, given developer support (this being the major hurdle), would allow you to buy a cheap-as-dirt gaming system for low-end games (if all you're playing is mariokart, why would you need a beast?) or a high-end system suitable for the most ridiculously amazing games that haven't even been released. Modding tools, a feature sadly missing from consoles, would be as easy to add to an open-source system as it is for PCs. Hardware manufacturers could create small motherboards with only the necessary parts to run high-end games, and gaming-optimized CPUs (or drop it entirely in favor of a gpu/cpu hybrid like the PS3).

Of course, this would be difficult to manage and fragmentation such as that seen with Android might be hard to prevent. It would be neat to see though.

Author:  mirhagk [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:01 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

I picture something completely modular, where you have your motherboard, which is common to every machine, and allows for multiple motherboards to be stacked or something similar to extend it, and each piece fits in with the same interface (or the same 2 or 3 interfaces, as CPUs will likely require more I/O lines), with a main control chip (NOT A CPU), that will handle the firmware and interactions of the devices, which are entirely customizable. Each new piece added to the board must follow 3 rules. First it must include some memory accessible via the first 2 I/O pins that describe how to interact with the machine (a kind of universal firmware). Second it must follow this firmware code completely, meaning it must react just as it says it does, and thirdly it must provide both a type ID, and extended type ID, and a part ID. The type ID is used when another piece requests a certain type of device, with an extended ID used to say which kind of device like that it would prefer (for instance the CPU can request some device of the type memory, preferring RAM, but failing that the control chip could simply allow it to use a harddrive as it's storage).

Obviously there are problems and kinks to work out, but I'd love to see a modular, open source system like this, as long as it was standardized, and prevented incompatibilities.

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

mirhagk @ Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:15 pm wrote:
...Also I was under the impression that Black ops was not done by the same company, let alone the same engine, although I could be wrong. If it was a different company, there's your answer right there...
Modified version of same engine and different studio with contributions from Infinity Ward, that still isn't a valid reason given the fact that there are other better looking and better functioning FPS games with less requirements.

Author:  mirhagk [ Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:29 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

It's code laziness, and we all suffer from it.

"Yes I know that lists are slower than arrays, but they are SOOO much more convient."

Author:  2goto1 [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:00 am ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Poorly written software is not always due to laziness. It's often due to budget and time constraints.

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

2goto1 @ Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:00 am wrote:
Poorly written software is not always due to laziness. It's often due to budget and time constraints.
I don't that could apply of Crytek or the CoD studios...

Author:  mirhagk [ Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Time constraints goes along with lazy code. Lazy code is generally written because of time constraints.

Author:  Dan [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Might be an intresting topic of discussion:

Japanese Retailers Phasing Out Xbox 360.

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:34 am ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Probably going to be a concern to Microsoft, leading to a newer console or more dedicated Japanese titles.

However, I don't it affects their profit margin by that much...Japan was never their specialty (as the article said, PS Move outsold Kinect). However, I would have expected that the PSN outage would have increased sales...maybe they missed a marketing opportunity.

Author:  Dan [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:26 pm ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

Also possibely intresting news from Japan:

Japanese 3DS Sales Skyrocket after Price Drop


(Note i am getting theses links form reddit's ​"This Week In Gaming" posts in /r/gaming)

Author:  ProgrammingFun [ Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RE:Wii U

Dan @ Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:26 pm wrote:
Also possibely intresting news from Japan:

Japanese 3DS Sales Skyrocket after Price Drop


(Note i am getting theses links form reddit's ​"This Week In Gaming" posts in /r/gaming)
I'm interested in seeing what sort of competition PS Vita poses to 3DS and family once it is released in Japan.

Author:  mirhagk [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  RE:Wii U

So I just realized a replacement for the Wii U. Nearly every new android phone lol.

The LG Optimus 2x (among many others) has an HDMI output, and it has a dual core, with the graphics capability to play some pretty sweet games. Hook it up to the tv and you have everything the Wii U has including a gyro sensor.


In fact since it's android, I may even make an app that will allow you to play multiplayer gaming via bluetooth or something, and it could be even better than the Wii U.

As smartphones increase in gaming capability, handheld gaming consoles are going to similarity decrease in usefulness. I mean a new phone comes out nearly every week, and the high end phones are getting better and better than handheld consoles. It's going to be interesting where this market goes though, since I don't think that handhelds are going to go anywhere.


: