Topic: Wii U - e3 is over... now what?

[Ian Sane]

And no mention of the GPGPU by either Ian or Chozo which is better than what's found either current console. Just as games should be optimized when ported from 360 to PS3 and vice versa, so should games ported to Wii U.

Can the GPGPU completely balance it out, though?  Yeah it's better than the current gen but the PS4/720 will probably have graphics better than that.  I was hoping the Wii U would be a significant enough jump that we wouldn't even be thinking that it might not hold up.  This CPU thing doesn't sound good and when they revealed the RAM it was like "well that's pretty good, I guess".  I think it needs to be something that immediately fills us with confidence and no "I hope that will be good enough" or "well third parties should adapt" excuses.

[Chozo Ghost]

Graphics aren't even the issue. We always knew the Wii U could pull 1080p and it doesn't get any better than that. I have no doubt the Wii U GPU is powerful, but that only handles graphics. The developer in the article Caterkiller posted mentioned Dynasty Warriors and said the Wii U's CPU was too slow to handle all the characters and stuff that was going on. Graphically speaking it will look awesome and be in HD, but its going to either run slow or stuff will have to be cut out because the CPU can't process it.

You know what looks really awesome? A painting. But a painting doesn't move. It looks pretty, and that's about it. If graphics are all that mattered something that can display a painting in 1080p is good enough, but if you want fast paced action, moving characters, explosions, etc. it seems like the Wii U's CPU isn't able to keep up. I'm not saying this. This is what the developer in Caterkiller's article said.

I'm sure with optimizations a developer can maximize the Wii U's capabilities and squeeze a lot more out of it, but as Ian pointed out even though they can do this they most likely won't. They could have done that with the Wii too, but they didn't. So why would they suddenly start doing it on the Wii U? History has shown they aren't going to mess with optimizing multi-platform ports on Nintendo hardware.

In fact, this problem isn't even limited to Nintendo. Look at the PS3 and its port of Skyrim. With a lot of work and optimization Bethesda could have made the game work smoothly on the PS3 despite its limited RAM. But they didn't. And I doubt they would have done it for the Wii U either.

[noname2200]

Graphics aren't even the issue. We always knew the Wii U could pull 1080p and it doesn't get any better than that.

The PS4 is going to pull 4k. So HA!

No game is going to use 4k resolution.

[Adrock]

Notice that it's not simply a GPU. The GPGPU is meant to handle some of the processing that the CPU normally would.

I have to wonder how much the Dynasty Warriors team optimized the game for Wii U. That's important because if you don't put the effort in, you get Skyrim on PS3. That's not a Wii U problem. That's how porting works.

I'm not concerned about the next generation PS and Xbox outclassing Wii U for reasons mentioned in a previous post. It won't be like the Wii vs PS3/360. The disparity will be much smaller. They'll undoubtedly be able to do more and better, but it's not going to be standard definition vs high definition.

[Chozo Ghost]

I have to wonder how much the Dynasty Warriors team optimized the game for Wii U. That's important because if you don't put the effort in, you get Skyrim on PS3. That's not a Wii U problem. That's how porting works.

That's just it. Third parties aren't going to put the effort in. The Wii U port (if it gets one at all) is going to have features ripped out so it can be shoehorned into working on the lower specs. Its faster and easier to rip features out entirely than to take the time to painstakingly optimize them to take full advantage of the hardware.This was what happened with the Wii (and to a lesser extent the PS3) this generation.

[Louieturkey]

I feel like the Tecmo Koei guys are not getting it.  I'm almost positive their game is not using all the power available in the GPU.  So like Adrock and others have said, they should be having the game grab more power from the GPU to do for the Wii U what the PS3's CPU does for it.  It's all about balance.  In the case of the PS3, their is more emphasis on the CPU because Sony was pushing the Cell processor when they released the PS3.  For the Wii U, AMD is so entrenched in GPGPU processing on their graphics cards that they probable told Nintendo that they could go with a less powerful CPU to keep the power down and still be able to get the same results by using the extra processing power in the GPU to do more than what the PS3 can do.

[Louieturkey]

I have to wonder how much the Dynasty Warriors team optimized the game for Wii U. That's important because if you don't put the effort in, you get Skyrim on PS3. That's not a Wii U problem. That's how porting works.

That's just it. Third parties aren't going to put the effort in. The Wii U port (if it gets one at all) is going to have features ripped out so it can be shoehorned into working on the lower specs. Its faster and easier to rip features out entirely than to take the time to painstakingly optimize them to take full advantage of the hardware.This was what happened with the Wii (and to a lesser extent the PS3) this generation.

There are no lower specs.  The Wii U is more powerful than the PS3 or the 360.  It's all about optimizing it for the new hardware.

Whichever is the lead console usually looks the best.  FFXIII looks best on the PS3.  Other games that were made first for the 360 look better on it.  If games are made for the Wii U first, the ports on the PS3 and 360 are going to look like crap comparably.

[Chozo Ghost]

If games are made for the Wii U first, the ports on the PS3 and 360 are going to look like crap comparably.

The only problem with that is the PS3 and 360 aren't the Wii U's competition. Their successors are the Wii U's competition. I don't think enough people get this. The Wii U is more powerful than the PS360. I get it. But what about the 8th gen systems it will be competing with? Is the Wii U only going to get PS360 ports or will it be able to get PS420 ports as well? In 2006-2007 the Wii got a good number of PS2 ports, just like right now the Wii U is getting a good number of PS360 ports (Mass Effect 3, Arkham City, and so on). Eventually though, PS360 development is going to dry up. Is the Wii U still going to be getting multiplatform support?

[noname2200]

If games are made for the Wii U first, the ports on the PS3 and 360 are going to look like crap comparably.

The only problem with that is the PS3 and 360 aren't the Wii U's competition. Their successors are the Wii U's competition. I don't think enough people get this. The Wii U is more powerful than the PS360. I get it. But what about the 8th gen systems it will be competing with? Is the Wii U only going to get PS360 ports or will it be able to get PS420 ports as well? In 2006-2007 the Wii got a good number of PS2 ports, just like right now the Wii U is getting a good number of PS360 ports (Mass Effect 3, Arkham City, and so on). Eventually though, PS360 development is going to dry up. Is the Wii U still going to be getting multiplatform support?

Excellent question. I've been on record for years as saying that neither Microsoft nor Sony will dare to have a power leap comparable to the PS2-PS3 leap. It doesn't make financial sense for them or for the third-parties that they largely rely upon. If that's the case, I can see the Wii U being the PS2 of its generation: clearly the weakest, but not so much that downports are impractical.

All that said, I'm beginning to wonder just how right I've been. I didn't think Sony would release something like the Vita, for example, yet here we are. Perhaps they're just so wedded, or addicted, to the idea that more power -> more money that they're unable to see the issues ahead?

[Luigi Dude]

The only problem with that is the PS3 and 360 aren't the Wii U's competition. Their successors are the Wii U's competition. I don't think enough people get this. The Wii U is more powerful than the PS360. I get it. But what about the 8th gen systems it will be competing with? Is the Wii U only going to get PS360 ports or will it be able to get PS420 ports as well? In 2006-2007 the Wii got a good number of PS2 ports, just like right now the Wii U is getting a good number of PS360 ports (Mass Effect 3, Arkham City, and so on). Eventually though, PS360 development is going to dry up. Is the Wii U still going to be getting multiplatform support?

Even if the 720/PS4 are way more powerful, the big difference this gen is the Wii U is coming out at least a full year before the 720/PS4 do.  With the Wii, it came out a full year after the 360 was released and most third parties had already invested heavily and in some cases at least 2 years into development of major 360/PS3 titles.  Right now third parties are still heavily invested in 360/PS3 development and all reports show are haven't done much for 720/PS4 development yet.

After many third parties got burned with the huge increase of development cost the 360/PS3 ended up making, Nintendo is in a much better position this gen to keep a lot of third parties using their current gen assests to save money and support the Wii U vs giving the 720/PS4 full support like last gen.  Nintendo has already done this with the 3DS in Japan, since most Japanese third parties are reusing their PSP assests for cheaper 3DS development, and ignoring the Vita since way more expensive to develop for.

So even if the 720/PS4 are way more powerful, I can see Nintendo easily convincing a lot of Japanese third parties to keep developing for the Wii U since they can reuse a lot of their 360/PS3 assests and engines for cheaper development cost instead of jumping to the more expensive 720/PS4.  Something they couldn't do with the Wii since it came out way too late after everyone already made the jump to 360/PS3.

[Adrock]

That's just it. Third parties aren't going to put the effort in.

If that's you're concern then the best specs in the world aren't going to matter. You can make an NES level game run poorly on the most amazing PC gaming rig in existence.

Even if the 720/PS4 are way more powerful, the big difference this gen is the Wii U is coming out at least a full year before the 720/PS4 do.  With the Wii, it came out a full year after the 360 was released and most third parties had already invested heavily and in some cases at least 2 years into development of major 360/PS3 titles.  Right now third parties are still heavily invested in 360/PS3 development and all reports show are haven't done much for 720/PS4 development yet.

After many third parties got burned with the huge increase of development cost the 360/PS3 ended up making, Nintendo is in a much better position this gen to keep a lot of third parties using their current gen assests to save money and support the Wii U vs giving the 720/PS4 full support like last gen.  Nintendo has already done this with the 3DS in Japan, since most Japanese third parties are reusing their PSP assests for cheaper 3DS development, and ignoring the Vita since way more expensive to develop for.

So even if the 720/PS4 are way more powerful, I can see Nintendo easily convincing a lot of Japanese third parties to keep developing for the Wii U since they can reuse a lot of their 360/PS3 assests and engines for cheaper development cost instead of jumping to the more expensive 720/PS4.  Something they couldn't do with the Wii since it came out way too late after everyone already made the jump to 360/PS3.

Exactly. I've pretty much been saying this for months and was about to say again. Thanks! That made my life easier. +1

[MrPhishfood]

Isn't this all on the assumption that MS and Sony's console will be using standard control pads?

It could be the case that both MS and Sony will have their own unique controllers i.e Kinect 2 and Move 2. It could be that developers have to pick one console and stick with it or they would have to risk making a very generic game.

This generation it was easy for developers to port 360 to PS3 and vice versa. If you make the assumption that MS and Sony's next gen console is going to be exactly the same as it is now but with beefed up specs then most of you would be right about the Wii U's outcome.

This is why I think MS and Sony will have their own unique controllers. This generation 360 had the better specs so almost all multi-platform games were better for that console. Because they had similar controllers MS and Sony were essentially trying to eat from the same pie.

Both MS and Sony now are designing their own console but they don't know about each others specs, they are playing this delicate balancing game between getting the right price for the console and out performing their competitor.

Which is kinda scary if you think about it because it essentially means the life and death of your console. So I imagine they will try to throw something else in there like a unique controller so they can differentiate themselves from the rest if they fall short in the hardware race.


If all 3 consoles end up having drastically different control methods we may hardly see any ports at all. Developers and publishers would then have keep a sharp eye on which 2 consoles has the better install base and develop for them, leaving the runt to die off.

[noname2200]

Isn't this all on the assumption that MS and Sony's console will be using standard control pads?

It could be the case that both MS and Sony will have their own unique controllers i.e Kinect 2 and Move 2. It could be that developers have to pick one console and stick with it or they would have to risk making a very generic game.

This generation it was easy for developers to port 360 to PS3 and vice versa. If you make the assumption that MS and Sony's next gen console is going to be exactly the same as it is now but with beefed up specs then most of you would be right about the Wii U's outcome.

This is why I think MS and Sony will have their own unique controllers. This generation 360 had the better specs so almost all multi-platform games were better for that console. Because they had similar controllers MS and Sony were essentially trying to eat from the same pie.

Both MS and Sony now are designing their own console but they don't know about each others specs, they are playing this delicate balancing game between getting the right price for the console and out performing their competitor.

Which is kinda scary if you think about it because it essentially means the life and death of your console. So I imagine they will try to throw something else in there like a unique controller so they can differentiate themselves from the rest if they fall short in the hardware race.


If all 3 consoles end up having drastically different control methods we may hardly see any ports at all. Developers and publishers would then have keep a sharp eye on which 2 consoles has the better install base and develop for them, leaving the runt to die off.

True, but if the Wii U succeeds it implies in my mind that developers will have adapted to having multiple control schemes for their games, or are at least accustomed to planning for multiple control schemes. Consider that the Wii U itself supports the Gamepad, Wiimote (and Wiimote+), Classic Controller, and Pro Controller. While not every game will support all of these, I'm willing wager that many will accommodate at least two.

That being the case, I'd wager Microsoft and Sony are both willing to put in traditional control schemes for their titles as well, as a backup if nothing else. As you said, differentiation may lead to ruination, so why risk it when you don't necessarily have to?

[MrPhishfood]

That being the case, I'd wager Microsoft and Sony are both willing to put in traditional control schemes for their titles as well, as a backup if nothing else. As you said, differentiation may lead to ruination, so why risk it when you don't necessarily have to?

Then developers would face a tough decision.

Should I make a game for 1 console that fully uses the controller for a unique experience.

Should I make a game for 2-3 consoles using just a standard controller and tack on elements for the unique controllers. For some publishers failure and success is the difference between 84 and 85 on metacritic and I think some developers would steer clear of half hearted ports. It doesn't mean it won't happen just that AAA development is becoming more and more risky.

One more thing I forgot to mention is the cost of these unique controllers. How much they cost to manufacture will add to the cost of the console as it has with the Wii U, so we may not see the hardware specs increase as much as they should to keep the price affordable.

[Ian Sane]

I think if everyone has a unique goofy controller third parties will just not use them much at all and stick to the traditional controller, which I assume they all will have.  With the costs of development these days everyone wants to be multi-platform to make their game available to the most potential customers as possible.  If any of the big three does something too different they'll just get cut out.

[noname2200]

That being the case, I'd wager Microsoft and Sony are both willing to put in traditional control schemes for their titles as well, as a backup if nothing else. As you said, differentiation may lead to ruination, so why risk it when you don't necessarily have to?

Then developers would face a tough decision.

Should I make a game for 1 console that fully uses the controller for a unique experience.

Should I make a game for 2-3 consoles using just a standard controller and tack on elements for the unique controllers. For some publishers failure and success is the difference between 84 and 85 on metacritic and I think some developers would steer clear of half hearted ports. It doesn't mean it won't happen just that AAA development is becoming more and more risky.

One more thing I forgot to mention is the cost of these unique controllers. How much they cost to manufacture will add to the cost of the console as it has with the Wii U, so we may not see the hardware specs increase as much as they should to keep the price affordable.

If critical reception is their fear then I actually think they'll opt for the standard-controller first, unique-stuff-later approach. Think back to the DS and Wii: initial games got dinged for not using the systems' new controls in creative ways, but after a year or two critics were happy as clams to de-emphasize the unique aspects in favor of the old ways. I know it was more nuanced than that, but the point is that developers can easily "get away with" using the standard controller, at least as far as critics are concerned.

You're right about hardware costs, though. The last Connectivity episode addressed this pretty spot-on; new toys cost more, plain and simple, and that's money that's not going to adding horsepower.

I think if everyone has a unique goofy controller third parties will just not use them much at all and stick to the traditional controller, which I assume they all will have.  With the costs of development these days everyone wants to be multi-platform to make their game available to the most potential customers as possible.  If any of the big three does something too different they'll just get cut out.

This is a pretty succinct summary of the matter, yeah. I personally don't like it, but like always the pollsters seem to have skipped me!

[Chozo Ghost]

You can make an NES level game run poorly on the most amazing PC gaming rig in existence.

Only if you went deliberately out of your way, and even then I'm not sure it would be possible considering that a modern PC gaming rig would be like 30,000 times more powerful than the NES. But my point is developers aren't going to deliberately go out of their way to **** up a game. No one ever deliberately sets out to screw something up (unless they are being vindictive). When something gets screwed up its because corners were cut and things were done half ass to save time and/or money.

[Adrock]

Cutting corners is deliberate. No one is working on these games by accident. They know what must be done to put a good game out. Higher ups may force their hands to rush a badly made product, but they know why.

[Kytim89]

I wonder if you will be able to use the Wii U Pro controller on the regular Wii, or with the Wii U itself using BC?

[TJ Spyke]

I think you already know the answer. The Wii U Pro Controller working on the Wii is about as likely as Miyamote dressing up as Master Chief and dancing the tango with Tomonobu Itagaki. I can't think of any console that let you use its controller on the previous system (i.e. you can't use a DualShock 2 on the PlayStation, the DualShock 3 on the PlayStation 2, the Xbox 360 controller on the Xbox, etc.).

[MegaByte]

You can use a Genesis controller on Sega Master System and even old Atari systems :-p

[tendoboy1984]

you can't use a DualShock 2 on the PlayStation

Yes you can. They use the exact same controller port.

[Chozo Ghost]

Yes you can. They use the exact same controller port.

Yep. As a matter of fact you can also use the Dualshock 1 or 2 on the PS3 if you have an adapter that will let it plug into the USB ports.

[MagicCow64]

Excellent question. I've been on record for years as saying that neither Microsoft nor Sony will dare to have a power leap comparable to the PS2-PS3 leap. It doesn't make financial sense for them or for the third-parties that they largely rely upon. If that's the case, I can see the Wii U being the PS2 of its generation: clearly the weakest, but not so much that downports are impractical.

All that said, I'm beginning to wonder just how right I've been. I didn't think Sony would release something like the Vita, for example, yet here we are. Perhaps they're just so wedded, or addicted, to the idea that more power -> more money that they're unable to see the issues ahead?

I was in the same boat, but thinking about it lately, I'm starting to expect a different outcome. Granted, the industry is in a major state of flux, with development costs running out of control and the future of console makers uncertain in a cloudy, smartphoney world. Microsoft and Sony should release modest upgrades.

But thinking about it from their perspective: The Wii U is mostly a known quantity now. Even if all the specs aren't public, you have to imagine that Sony and Microsoft know pretty damn well at this point what's inside it. They've also been playing on a two-competitor field for a while. Is there really room in the market place for three similarly powered consoles? There barely was before, and I think there's less space for that now. If I were Microsoft and Sony, I think I would succumb to the urge to damn the torpedoes and pump out as cutting-edge a console as possible. Neutering the Wii U would be great for both of them, and they could assume that even if the consoles are expensive, the dedicated/addicted video game population is still going to go with one or the other. And over the console's life the price would drop. Plus, neither Sony nor Microsoft likely has a great idea of how the Orbis or Durango is going to turn out, so there's an extra incentive to try to have something ready to embarrass the other spec-wise.

This might cause an industry collapse if it backfires, but most likely studios would continue consolidating to better absorb risk, and producing what that Penny Arcade article called "AAAAA" games. Japanese developers will probably continue to appreciate the cheaper production environment on the Wii U, but it seems like they matter less and less every generation.

[tendoboy1984]

The problem with that is, development budgets have been rising with every generation. Sooner or later, these inflating budgets will become too much for most publishers to handle. If left unchecked, the industry could collapse on itself, but thankfully, we have smaller games on mobile devices to somewhat balance that shift.


The point is, cheap mobile games help fund development for larger titles. There is a nice balance between the two.