Topic: The OFFICIAL Big N rumor thread *bring your own salt*

[Kytim89]

Will you be able to upload the Spotpasses that you have already gotten onto the Wii U?
 

[Ceric]

I would like something the size of a credit card so I can just put it in my wallet.

something like this?

But with this or similar on the screen instead of a Counter.


Sticking with black and white because of power concerns.  Though if they make an e-ink display that thin I think they take even less power.

Then I hope they allow for 3DS to be used as well.

[BlackNMild2k1]

you do realize that the rumor said a low res color screen right?

[Ceric]

you do realize that the rumor said a low res color screen right?

I still rather it just be B&W.

[FZeroBoyo]

Just in case some people want ideas of sizes of games that could be downloaded through the eShop. You'd definitely need a bigger SD card for Revelations.

[Oblivion]

What's that image from?

[FZeroBoyo]

Here you go:  http://wii.ign.com/articles/122/1223941p1.html

[Oblivion]

Pretty interesting stuff. I'd like them to dig out and see how big the data for Xenoblade is.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Walmart is running ads for Wii U @ $350
http://wiiudaily.com/2012/04/walmart-sets-wii-u-price-at-350/

do you think they know something we don't?

[Tamazoid]

Doubt it. Since last July I could have pre ordered the WiiU at EBgames for $600 AUD.

[Lithium]

It's most likely a placeholder price imo

[Ymeegod]

Considering Nintendo not announcing a price point at E3, they probably don't have a set price yet and is going use the show to test publics interest.  If it recieves high praise expect to see an higher price point but my guess it's going be sub-$300 still with the likely hood of $250 or less since both the PS3 and Xboxs are stated to be taking a price cut as well.

[nickmitch]

I think it's a placeholder price too. Probably just a slip up that the ads started appearing.

[tendoboy1984]

Considering Nintendo not announcing a price point at E3, they probably don't have a set price yet and is going use the show to test publics interest.  If it recieves high praise expect to see an higher price point but my guess it's going be sub-$300 still with the likely hood of $250 or less since both the PS3 and Xboxs are stated to be taking a price cut as well.

It won't be less than $300.

Think about it, the Wii U is a huge step in technology for Nintendo. Forget about comparing it to the PS3 and Xbox 360. The Wii U is Nintendo's first real HD system. They will price it higher than the current Wii, because they feel that's an appropriate price for them.

And pretty much every major game system has been around $200-$300 at launch.

PS1: $300
N64: $200
Saturn: $400
Dreamcast: $200
PS2: $300
Xbox: $300
GameCube: $200
Xbox 360: $300 and $400
PS3: $500 and $600
Wii: $250

There is a trend with console pricing. When a new console is about to be released, the older console is discounted so the new one can have a similar launch price.

Case in point: The PS1 was $300, the PS2 was $300, the Xbox was $300, the Xbox 360 was $300 / $400. The PS3 was an exception to this rule, simply because Sony packed in so much advanced tech at that time (Blu-Ray, Cell processor) that they couldn't afford to price it low.

Going by Nintendo's own pricing standards, the Wii U will be about $300, simply because it's comparable to the PS3 and Xbox 360 in power, and the technology is also newer.

[Louieturkey]

If they use E3 to gauge interest and set the price based on that, they will be repeating their mistake with the 3DS.  At E3 2010, the 3DS got huge praise and Nintendo decided to set the price at $250 because of that.  That failed and they admitted it.  They said they learned from the 3DS launch, but if they do the same thing here, they will be repeating their mistakes.

I wouldn't be surprised with a $350 price, but wouldn't be surprised with a $300 or even $400 price as well.

[Chozo Ghost]

Another reason is inflation. The U.S. dollar has lost a lot of value over the last 5 years or so due to the economy being down the crapper and whatnot... so stuff has to go up in price simply because the money itself isn't worth as much. A console which just barely broke even at $249.99 would be selling at a loss in terms of today's money.

If they use E3 to gauge interest and set the price based on that, they will be repeating their mistake with the 3DS.  At E3 2010, the 3DS got huge praise and Nintendo decided to set the price at $250 because of that.  That failed and they admitted it.  They said they learned from the 3DS launch, but if they do the same thing here, they will be repeating their mistakes.

Its debatable why the 3DS had such sluggish sales in its first months. Price is certainly a factor, but you can't deny the software lineup wasn't that impressive. Eventually the 3DS turned around, but one could argue that was as much due to the release of Super Mario Land 3D and other hit titles as to the price drop itself.

When Nintendo said they "learned from the 3DS mistake" I thought they meant in regards to the games available at launch.

[Louieturkey]

Another reason is inflation. The U.S. dollar has lost a lot of value over the last 5 years or so due to the economy being down the crapper and whatnot... so stuff has to go up in price simply because the money itself isn't worth as much. A console which just barely broke even at $249.99 would be selling at a loss in terms of today's money.

This makes huge sense.  I wouldn't be surprised if the lowest priced PS4 and Nexbox SKU start at $400 when they release.  Sony really can't afford to sell their new console at a huge loss this time around.

[nickmitch]

If they use E3 to gauge interest and set the price based on that, they will be repeating their mistake with the 3DS.  At E3 2010, the 3DS got huge praise and Nintendo decided to set the price at $250 because of that.  That failed and they admitted it.  They said they learned from the 3DS launch, but if they do the same thing here, they will be repeating their mistakes.

Its debatable why the 3DS had such sluggish sales in its first months. Price is certainly a factor, but you can't deny the software lineup wasn't that impressive. Eventually the 3DS turned around, but one could argue that was as much due to the release of Super Mario Land 3D and other hit titles as to the price drop itself.

When Nintendo said they "learned from the 3DS mistake" I thought they meant in regards to the games available at launch.

There were a LOT of reasons why the 3DS failed at launch. Price is just the easiest to point to because Nintendo slashed it in response. In addition to what Chozo said, the eShop wasn't up and running until some time after the system launched either. Hell, I'm pretty sure we didn't even have the web browser, did we? The mistake was that the system wasn't ready to be launched when it did. Nintendo learning from that means there will be more titles at the launch, an eShop ready to go, and no features that we'll have to wait for a software update to get.

[bustin98]

I WANT the WiiU to cost more than $300. That means they've put some muscle in the box. I want to see the WiiU have some longevity. I look at purchasing a console as an investment. If I put big money in, I want long term returns. If the console runs out of steam after 2 years because the developers have moved on to bigger and better, what kind of investment is that? Yes, I want to buy a Nintendo console for more than Nintendo games. Mario and Zelda and Donkey Kong is fine, but I have no interest in Mario Party or Kirby or other games that feel dumbed down to appease a family base that wasn't there in the 80s.

Anyway, my point is, I will pay $350 - $400 for the WiiU if the tech is there. I will probably skip this machine until later in the lifespan if it launches sub $300 and it fails to deliver tech that keeps up with at least 5 years of the future.

[Chozo Ghost]

I WANT the WiiU to cost more than $300. That means they've put some muscle in the box.

Hopefully that's what it would mean. But you need to keep in mind a lot of the cost that's going to go into the Wii U will be in the innovative things like the tablet controller and things like that which are innovative features and good to have, but don't have anything to do with muscle. Then on the other hand, Nintendo will probably be selling the system with some sort of profit margin. I know after the 3DS price cut they are now selling that at a slight loss, but before the price cut they were making a tidy profit off each unit sold. One would think they learned their lesson with that and won't try to charge more than is necessary, but who knows?

[Ian Sane]

This talk about the price reveals a big problem with the gimmick approach to designing a videogame system.  The tablet controller is going to cost money.  Some concession has to be made to accomodate it.  Either the hardware has to sacrifice power or the price has to go up or Nintendo has to just eat it (and we know they won't do that).

So if we have to pay more money or deal with inferior hardware and the almost certainly negative effect that will have on third party support, the tablet better be fuckin' worth it.  The Wii was a rip-off.  Everything was riding on motion control and what did Nintendo give us?  Glorified tech demos like Wii Sports and games with button presses mapped to imprecise "shakes".  Not worth it.

The stuff that comes with a videogame system is what absolutely SHOULD be standard.  You don't include fringe crap.  It's a good thing the SNES didn't sacrifice Mode 7 for a pack-in Super Scope.  The Super Scope was, thankfully, an optional accessory because it's functionality was too specialized to be standard.

So unless they're giving us this tablet for free, it damn well better prove itself to be a new standard in videogame controls.  And I don't mean Nintendo shoehorns it into every game and forces us to use it, I mean it's clear that it has to be there like L&R buttons on the SNES controller and the analog stick on the N64.  This means Nintendo has to have some clear purpose for it and game ideas that require it, as opposed to just putting it on their as a marketing gimmick and hoping to come up with some ideas.

Of course this isn't a new idea.  It's very similar to the GC/GBA connectivity idea and the dual touchscreen of the DS.  We already know what to expect and it isn't anything to justify including a tablet as a standard.  Unless Nintendo just happened to have suddenly come up with all these great ideas that for whatever reason they never thought of in all these years they could have done it on the DS.

[Chozo Ghost]

It's a good thing the SNES didn't sacrifice Mode 7 for a pack-in Super Scope.

The funny thing about the SNES is it had far better graphical and audio capabilities than the Genesis, but the Genesis utterly smoked it in terms of CPU speed. That was one (probably the only) respect where the SNES was actually inferior. A game like Sonic which is obviously involves a very fast moving character is something the SNES couldn't pull off very well. I remember a lot of the early SNES games which had a lot of stuff going on had some severe slowdown because the processor had a hard time keeping up with it. On the Genesis that was never an issue.

But as I said, the SNES delivered far better graphics and audio, so it was the superior console for more slow paced games like RPGs and Mario platformers and such, but when it came to fast paced shoot em ups, sports games, and of course Sonic, the Genesis had the better CPU to make it happen. In comparison to SNES games, Genesis games looked duller and more dreary. They played blazingly fast and with no slowdown, but they didn't look or sound anywhere near as good.

The question is did Nintendo make sacrifices with the CPU just so they could pack in Mode 7 and 16bit audio and a more vibrant color pallete? I honestly don't know, but I'm kinda glad they did because I prefer the genres of games that the SNES can pull off more beautifully versus the ones better suited for the Genesis. At least we can be sure Nintendo didn't make sacrifices for the sake of a controller gimmick, but on the SNES maybe they did sacrifice power for looks?

[Ian Sane]

It's a good thing the SNES didn't sacrifice Mode 7 for a pack-in Super Scope.

The funny thing about the SNES is it had far better graphical and audio capabilities than the Genesis, but the Genesis utterly smoked it in terms of CPU speed. That was one (probably the only) respect where the SNES was actually inferior. A game like Sonic which is obviously involves a very fast moving character is something the SNES couldn't pull off very well. I remember a lot of the early SNES games which had a lot of stuff going on had some severe slowdown because the processor had a hard time keeping up with it. On the Genesis that was never an issue.

But as I said, the SNES delivered far better graphics and audio, so it was the superior console for more slow paced games like RPGs and Mario platformers and such, but when it came to fast paced shoot em ups, sports games, and of course Sonic, the Genesis had the better CPU to make it happen. In comparison to SNES games, Genesis games looked duller and more dreary. They played blazingly fast and with no slowdown, but they didn't look or sound anywhere near as good.

The question is did Nintendo make sacrifices with the CPU just so they could pack in Mode 7 and 16bit audio and a more vibrant color pallete? I honestly don't know, but I'm kinda glad they did because I prefer the genres of games that the SNES can pull off more beautifully versus the ones better suited for the Genesis. At least we can be sure Nintendo didn't make sacrifices for the sake of a controller gimmick, but on the SNES maybe they did sacrifice power for looks?

You can't just release the best hardware around because the price would be too high so there is always some sort of trade off that has to occur.  With the SNES, Nintendo made the right call.  Slowdown wasn't the best but devs learned to work around it and Mode 7 and the superior graphics and sound were undoubtably worth it.  It didn't damage third party support and the system's library has some of the absolute best games ever made.  SNES owners didn't suffer to any major extent from the slower CPU.  The N64 on the other hand is an example of a bad trade off.  Nintendo picked the fast load times of cartridges over larger and cheaper CDs.  This pretty much destroyed their third party support and N64 games cost more to the consumer.  N64 owners clearly suffered as a result of the decision.  Nintendo suffered too, since their poor decision greatly helped a major competitor get their foot in the door and lead the market for the next ten years.

Is the tablet worth whatever trade off has to be made to accomodate it?  The answer better be "yes" and it better be Wii U owners who benefit from it, not just Nintendo.

[MegaByte]

The question is did Nintendo make sacrifices with the CPU just so they could pack in Mode 7 and 16bit audio and a more vibrant color pallete?

Well, it was more complicated than that. Even though the SNES base CPU was relatively slow, they added co-processor chips right in the cartridges that needed them. Apparently, the SNES was supposed to ship with a DSP co-processor, but it was either not ready or too expensive to include at launch. So, when they actually needed this functionality, they stuck one in every cartridge (for example, heavy Mode 7 games such as Super Mario Kart and PilotWings). Chips like the Super FX and SA1 (Super Mario RPG) chips were more complex processors running much faster than the SNES CPU. Somehow, Nintendo (and other companies like Capcom) managed to put these in games cost-effectively (which says something about how much they must have ultimately been making on hardware). This was actually a continuation of a practice that served them well in the NES days -- adding memory mapper chips and the like greatly extended the ability of the system (otherwise, Super Mario Bros. would have been the end of the system rather than the beginning). Sega instead opted for add-ons like the 32X. They did try to go the embedded chip route once with Virtua Racing, but it ended up being too expensive.

[Oblivion]

Did they do the same with the N64? I don't remember much from that era.