Topic: Wii U in Review (News & Rumor Consolidation)

[Adrock]

Right now, we know from 3rd parties that Wii U is more powerful than current generation consoles. I don't think that's the problem. Wii U might be "weak" compared to hardware that won't see the light of day until at least 18 months from now, probably longer. Nintendo's bird/garden tech demo last year was graphically more impressive than anything I've seen on current home consoles and it was real time so Wii U games can look at least as good, probably better. That said, I think Nintendo is really trying to take a stand here on the whole graphics thing. Nothing we haven't heard before. However, I think they can do a better job of conveying their message. I think a better statement would be, "We're proud of the hardware that AMD and IBM built for us. The specs are impressive, but I'm telling you guys, they don't matter. Look at our new controller. Isn't it something? It's going to change the way we play videogames forever. We've had discussions with our 3rd party partners for well over a year. They know what the Wii U can do, but what they always come back to is how they can use the GamePad. You guys are in for some pretty exciting stuff." That lays it on pretty thick. However, it addresses the issue, but quickly steers the focus back on what Nintendo wants people to pay attention to: the controller.

[Chozo Ghost]

Nintendo's bird/garden tech demo last year was graphically more impressive than anything I've seen on current home consoles and it was real time so Wii U games can look at least as good, probably better.

Wasn't that bird demo thing from last year pre-rendered?

"we just want to concentrate on the games"

Even that statement wouldn't be so bad, until you consider the sort of games Nintendo wants to concentrate on. Its not like Wii Fit U or Nintendo Land are going to require a beast of a machine to pull off. I'm sure they will be a huge step up from the N64 quality graphics of games like Wii Sports, but that's nothing to brag about.

[Ian Sane]

Regardless of what Nintendo thinks is important, we want to know the tech specs and we have a good reason for wanting to know them so COUGH THEM UP.

This isn't just arbitrary curiousity.  I feel my Wii experience was seriously tarnished by Nintendo's decision to go so weak on the specs.  That right there completely destroyed any chance of having decent third party support.  I do not want that to happen again.  So specs matter.  I'm not going to even begin to consider buying a Wii U until I find out those specs.  I'm not some hardcore technophile hung up over trivial matters here.  Last gen they said "specs don't matter" and that was a load of ****!  I'm not getting conned again.  The whole reason anyone gives a **** is because they don't want to a system that's a gen behind like the Wii was.  That's a totally legitimate reason to ask what the specs are.  For all Nintendo's talk about winning back the core, they sure don't act like it.

They either are hiding obviously inferior specs or they're too stupid to realize that core gamers want to know the specs specificaly to see if this is just the Wii Part 2 or if things will be different this time.  If the specs are good there is no harm in revealing them.  All it could do would be good PR with the core gamers they supposedly want to win back.

And no one is going to completely write off the Gamepad because Nintendo revealed the specs.  How are the two even related?  I think Nintendo's failure to demonstrate the Gamepad as anything worthwhile at E3 has done more damage.  "Nevermind the specs.  Look at our new controller!  It... um... lets you put the map on the second screen and... uh... is useful for the sort of shallow mini-games that our detractors crapped all over the Wii for."

Usually if a company is all "nevermind that, look at this" it means that this is the replacement for that.  They're likely pushing the Gamepad because that's the tradeoff for better specs, like motion control was the tradeoff for better specs on the Wii.  They're talking like it's specs vs. Gamepad, like they couldn't have a console with up-to-date specs that also has the tablet controller.  And in terms of price that is probably true but you're not going to win over anyone that wrote off the Wii with the exact same strategy on the Wii U.

What they really should want to be able to say is that the Wii U isn't impressive just because of the specs but also because of the new controller.  It's this PLUS MORE!  If you could say that, you would, unless you can't or you're stupid.  For a company that says they want to be an "and" company, they tend to say "but" and "or" a fair lot.

[nickmitch]

Hasn't Nintendo always had a policy of not talking about specs? I don't think they're purposefully hiding the specs, just going about business as usual. However, I think now is probably the best time to change that policy though.

[Adrock]

Wasn't that bird demo thing from last year pre-rendered?

My understanding was that the bird/garden demo was real-time. There are show floor videos from E3 2011 of people using the GamePad to "look around" which is actually pretty impressive when you think about it because that means the Wii U is rendering the scene twice, once in HD on the TV then again in SD while also sending it to the GamePad with no lag. I don't know how many games would be able to use that practically in a gameplay sense, but it's nice trick to show off what can be done. On top of that, the entire demo was running on early development kits so the final hardware should be even more capable than that. According to this site which did comparisons, the demo on the show floor showed more real-time effects than the demo during Nintendo press conference.

This isn't just arbitrary curiousity.

What? Yes, it is. Everything about it is arbitrary. I understand that some people want to know. Personally, I don't need to know. I wouldn't understand what half of that stuff means anyway. The specs don't matter on other consoles either. I never once played a PS3 game and said, "Man, they sure did make good use of those SPEs." You don't play specs; you play games. Any seasoned gamer can play a game and tell whether or not the developer gave a ****, regardless of how capable the hardware was.

Like I said, 3rd parties (specifically Gearbox Software, I believe) have already outed Wii U's hardware as more powerful than the current generation. How much better? Does it matter at this point in June 2012? Sony and Microsoft haven't showed their next-gen hands yet so the only point of reference are the current consoles which Wii U is better than.

[Ian Sane]

I believe Nintendo's "policy" started with the Wii, which of course was a system where the specs were embarassingly weak and they had a clear incentive to hide them.  I don't remember if they were open about the DS or not but I remember the GBA and Gamecube reveals and you could go to Nintendo's web site and see the specs plain as day.  They have not always hid them.

Though even if that is now their policy I would argue that this is a good system to make an exception on because the Wii was weak on specs, there is concern that that will be the case again, and revealing the specs would address those concerns.  No one assumed that the 3DS would be underpowered by handheld standards because the DS wasn't so keeping quiet didn't really matter.  But this time it matters.  They should want people to not think this is going to be under-powered like the Wii was.  They should make the exception to squash a negative assumption that is being made about their new system.

[Ian Sane]

This isn't just arbitrary curiousity.

What? Yes, it is. Everything about it is arbitrary. I understand that some people want to know. Personally, I don't need to know. I wouldn't understand what half of that stuff means anyway. The specs don't matter on other consoles either. I never once played a PS3 game and said, "Man, they sure did make good use of those SPEs." You don't play specs; you play games. Any seasoned gamer can play a game and tell whether or not the developer gave a ****, regardless of how capable the hardware was.

How is it arbitrary?  I gave a reason.  "Arbitrary" means it has no reason.  You don't play specs you play games... but no one makes games for shitty last gen specs.  I wasn't upset that I didn't get to play specs on the Wii.  I was upset that I didn't get to play all those GAMES that were on the other systems but NOT the Wii because the Wii's specs were too damn inferior in comparison.  So upset was I in missing those actual existent GAMES that I felt I had to buy a PS3.  The Wii's inferior specs cost Wii owners GAMES.  It isn't just some technophile obsession.  If the specs are too low the third parties will exclude the Wii U just like they excluded the Wii.  That means less GAMES TO PLAY.

[Adrock]

Though even if that is now their policy I would argue that this is a good system to make an exception on...

Lulz. It's not a policy if you make exceptions to it. Apply that reasoning to anything else, like a job for example. "Well, we normally don't condone stealing here, but we'll make an exception just this one time. Take as many ink cartridges as you need. Also, we know you've been sending Laura pictures of your penis which is grounds for termination, but we're going to let that slide as well. Just keep it to 2 dick pictures per week please."

"Arbitrary" means it has no reason.

You might want to look up the word arbitrary.

[shingi_70]

Will the Wii U really be uunnder powered compared to the rest of next gen. I mean looking at the leaked xbox slides ot seems a stretch to do all what they want to do while having uber power. And can Sony even afford to to balls out crazy again?

I'm expecting a xbox/PS2/Gamecube type of gen.

[Ian Sane]

Though even if that is now their policy I would argue that this is a good system to make an exception on...

Lulz. It's not a policy if you make exceptions to it. Apply that reasoning to anything else, like a job for example. "Well, we normally don't condone stealing here, but we'll make an exception just this one time. Take as many ink cartridges as you need. Also, we know you've been sending Laura pictures of your penis which is grounds for termination, but we're going to let that slide as well. Just keep it to 2 dick pictures per week please."

"Arbitrary" means it has no reason.

You might want to look up the word arbitrary.

I'm using "arbitrary" in the manner in which one decides something seemingly randomly.  Should I said "randomly" instead?  I'm saying this isn't something I care about "just because" or because I'm merely curious, but because I consider it to be an important piece of information and I have some reasonable justification for asking for it.  It isn't just "urr, I want to know so tell me."

As for policy, "sorry that's our policy" is bullshit.  Nintendo's policy is stupid to begin with.  You make exceptions for a policy when the policy ceases to make sense.  In this case hiding the specs is completely counter-intuitive when the very people you claim you're trying to win back want to know the specs to make sure they're not underpowered like they were the previous time.

[Sarail]

Hasn't Nintendo always had a policy of not talking about specs? I don't think they're purposefully hiding the specs, just going about business as usual. However, I think now is probably the best time to change that policy though.

Nope. Only since the Wii has Nintendo stopped doing this. Specs were released for the 'Cube, and I very distinctly remember reading about specs and getting excited for the N64 back in '95 when I was just 13 measly years old.

Nintendo's thought process changed with the Wii.

I'm expecting a xbox/PS2/Gamecube type of gen.

And I'm honestly ok with that. I <3 my 'Cube.

[Chozo Ghost]

Remember the N64? That was a system Nintendo actually went out of their way to rub the specs in people's faces. They even made sure to drive home the fact it was "64-bit" by going so far as to proudly integrate that fact into the name of the system.

With the Wii? Not so much. The Wii actually lives up to its name though, because it is "Wee" in terms of its specs and power. That's why Nintendo is silent about the specs and saying they "don't matter". When your Wii is "wee" you don't want to draw a lot of attention to it, because it is embarrassing.

[NWR_insanolord]

I don't particularly care about them releasing specs, because very little useful information can be gotten from them. Developers raving about it is infinitely more valuable for judging its power than hard numbers.

[Chozo Ghost]

Developers raving about it

Don't get me wrong, its great that developers are praising and raving about the Wii U.... BUT the concern I have is this praise is coming from developers who have only worked with 7th generation hardware. The fact they are impressed with the Wii U is great, because that suggests the Wii U is more powerful than anything currently on the market, but the problem is the 8th generation is right around the corner. Will these same developers still be raving about the Wii U in 2014? That's the concern that I'm having. I'm sure there was a lot of favorable impressions of the Dreamcast coming from developers in 1999, but where was that enthusiasm in 2001?

[NWR_insanolord]

But how does knowing the specs benefit you in that case? We don't have the specs of Sony and Microsoft's next consoles, so we, like those developers, would have nothing to compare them to.

[Spak-Spang]

Developers are raving about it now...but developers will be raving about the Xbox 360 and PS4 also.

I don't care about specs as long as there are fun games...period.  And actually Nintendo never really talked about actual specs only vague descriptions.  For instance did we know the RAM of the Nintendo 64 or SNES?  No, only the bit rates. 

The SNES did talk about a dedicated Sound card, but that is about it.

Vague descriptions at best.  This is normal.  Treating a game machine like a computer is not normal...that matters less to me than games. 

[NWR_insanolord]

In the GameCube/PS2/Xbox generation all the talk was of how many polygons they could render. I remember a comparison table in EGM in the GameCube/Xbox launch issue comparing the technical attributes of the systems, and the GameCube's numbers all had asterisks next to them because the Xbox and PS2 numbers were theoretical maximums but the numbers Nintendo gave were all things they'd seen done in practice, and were therefore significantly lower. So even back then Nintendo wasn't very good at touting the abilities of their hardware.

[Spak-Spang]

It is because Nintendo doesn't care about the numbers...they NEVER, EVER have.  They only care about the games.  Nintendo wanted to show what was actually possible and achievable. 

Nintendo in the SNES era talked about 16bits because that had a significant boost on game quality.  They also talked about a dedicated sound chip which was important, because it really add a significant boost to sound effects and quality in a system.

Now, the Nintendo 64 era, Nintendo did talk about 64 bit...and they didn't really mention polygon pushing power or effects, or anything.  What I remember Nintendo touting though was 4 controller ports built into the system...and the eventual 4 MEG RAM expansion which what...doubled the RAM to 8 or something silly like that.  Maybe it upped it to 12 MEGS RAM...I can't remember. 

But, Nintendo never cares about specs, just like the Wii should...it was about the innovative controller, the Wii U shows us...it is about the innovative controller...and the Super Wii We, will also be about some future innovation...probably related to the controller.

[Chozo Ghost]

But how does knowing the specs benefit you in that case? We don't have the specs of Sony and Microsoft's next consoles, so we, like those developers, would have nothing to compare them to.

It would be comforting to see that the Wii U doesn't just surpass the PS360, but does so with a considerable margin. Just being about on par with the PS360 or beating them by a small margin is the thing that worries me. Seeing that there is a huge leap forward would be reassuring. Of course we don't know what the PS420 specs are and I wouldn't expect the Wii U to be able to beat that, but as long as its far ahead of the 7th generation consoles that would be good enough.

[Adrock]

I don't really see this being a major problem as long as Nintendo can lock up 3rd party support for simultaneous releases. Nintendo is on a different timetable as Sony and Microsoft. I remember reading in, I think, an old EGM that Nintendohas a company policy to support their home consoles for at least 5 years (even if that last year is usually transitionary). Nintendo was the only company that really needed to launch new hardware. Depending on when Sony and Microsoft launch (I think 2014 is more likely), Wii U is positioned to spend roughly the 1st half of its life next to PS3/360 and the second half next to their successors. It really depends on if 3rd parties want to make the transition to more powerful hardware. There's certainly reason for them to want to hold off for as long as possible. Current hardware isn't necessarily limiting them creatively. Development costs are still high and many studios are falling off the map. Will the graphics in Orbis/Durango be enough of a jump to justify spending the money to get the most out of it? Will there be advantages beyond the hardware? With Wii U, they're just porting even if they're not coming close to getting the most out of the extra power. It's less of a risk, investment and hassle. Nintendo isn't in a terrible position here.

[NWR_insanolord]

The same basic thing is happening on handhelds right now. The 3DS is a modest improvement on the PSP, while the Vita is much more powerful. The 3DS had a head start. Developers, in Japan at least, are overwhelmingly favoring the 3DS.

[shingi_70]

Well the 3DS made more sense to devs because it has the power of the PSP and is similar to something they have worked on before with the popularity of the OG DS.  That and I'm sure that most are reluctant to move to vita after the major power jump on consoles didn't work out for most developers and the move to handhelds was to help keep costs down.

But on consoles side I think most devs will switch over to the Durango/Orbits anyway. Unlike the handheld sector Western development is the major player in the console space and with most of Japanese puns floundering or becoming increasingly smaller it makes sense that next gen will once again be about power and mid-teir devlopmemt going to download services.

And while nintendo does usually tend to do a 5 year development cycle I think trying to pull that off this time around could backfire on them.

[Ian Sane]

Handhelds are different.  The 3DS is getting good support because the DS did and the 3DS is an obvious step up from the DS.  The market is quite different in that exclusives still are the norm.  The Wii had crappy third party support because with consoles multiplatform support is now the norm and if you have the weirdo console, you're left out.

The "Nintendo never cared about specs" stuff is complete revisionist history.  They changed their tune with the Wii because it was different than their other systems.  It's no different than how RPGs were awesome, until Nintendo didn't have them anymore so they sucked, but now they're good again (unless you're Reggie in which case they're bad until Gamestop steps in).

The specs thing probably would be less of an issue if Nintendo had some more impressive visuals in the games they showed at E3.  Pikmin 3 and NSMB U clearly look better than Wii games but they wouldn't even stand out on the PS360.  In the old days it wasn't necessarily the specs that sold me on the system but the first screens of the new games.  I didn't need to know that the SNES was 16 bit because I could just look at Super Mario World and it was immediately obvious that this was a major step up from the NES.  If Nintendo showed a real game (as opposed to a video) with visuals that blew away anything on the PS360 then I would be more confident without the specs.  If Nintendo had not cheaped out on specs last time I wouldn't really care if they didn't provide them this time (unless the new games looked unimpressive which is what made me suspicious of the Wii when it was first shown).

I look at it like if the last time I went out with my friend he forgot his wallet.  The next time we hang out I'm asking him "do you have your wallet?" and if he says some dodgy question like "what difference does it make?" then I'm going to make him pull the damn wallet out of his pocket and show it to my face.  You goofed things last time, ensure me that you're not going to do so this time.

[Adrock]

I don't think Nintendo has changed their tune on the whole specs thing. They've always been pretty consistent about their view on the hardware's role in terms of software and that goes back to Hiroshi Yamauchi. He told Iwata that people "do not play with the game machine itself. They play with the software, and they are forced to purchase a game machine in order to use the software. Therefore the price of the machine should be as cheap as possible." The roots of this line of thinking were planted well before the Wii. Additionally, look who's been in charge of their entire software division for nearly 2 decades. Miyamoto was hired in 1979 as an artist yet he's always deemphasized aesthetics. He has never made games with graphics as the main priority. He makes them to be fun and finds inspiration for simple hobbies he's involved in. He's never been a specs guy.

Previously revealing specs doesn't really suggest that Nintendo ever really cared about the numbers. They've been thumping the "gameplay first" line for as long as I remember. They've traditionally released hardware that allowed them to make the games they wanted to make even if better hardware was available. Nintendo was never the kind of company that approached hardware with the intent to make a high spec machine. The improved specs were more a result of the passage of time and even then, they chose modest parts compared to what was available. Even 3DS which was made more powerful at the behest of 3rd parties is significantly weaker than it could have been. Nintendo could have made the 3DS as powerful as Vita as the technology exists; they chose not to.

The Wii was the 1st time Nintendo specifically built a console to be a lower spec machine. They saw where the industry was headed in terms of rising development costs and plateauing graphics so they took a stand. Sure, they were probably 5-10 years early on that front but they weren't caught with their pants down. They didn't build a machine, realize it was weak then claim specs don't matter. They intentionally built a low spec machine because of their philosophy on games that's carried over from generation to generation. Unfortunately, another thing that carried over was Nintendo's insistence that they can demand 3rd parties to follow their line of thinking despite no longer being in a position to do so. Fortunately, it seems Nintendo has significantly eased up on that with 3DS and Wii U.

[Stogi]

I think what everyone is forgetting is that the Wii U is suppose to be an upgrade machine, and not an entirely new system. What I mean by that is, Nintendo is looking to fix the mistakes made in the past while enticing previous Wii owners to upgrade with an excellent transitional strategy and new comers with a gimmick and spec bump.