Topic: Wii U Has 8 GB of Internal Storage

[NWR_insanolord]

The flash memory cards used in current handhelds are not the same thing as old-school cartridges. Also, they would be a lot more expensive on consoles due to the greater memory capacity required. The Wii U uses 25 GB discs; to do that with flash memory would be far, far more expensive than the ~2 GB cards in use on the 3DS.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I find it highly ironic that cartridges on home consoles are deemed as archaic due to their expensiveness and complexity, yet they are still being used widely on mobile devices.


Heck, even Sony dropped the PSP's disc media and switched to carts for the Vita.


So it's ok for handhelds to use carts, yet on consoles it's a big no-no? Such hypocrisy.

You forget that power requirements of a handheld necessitate the need for low power consumption. Powering a spinning disc is not power efficient. Using a flash cart with no moving parts is power efficient.

PSV may have a 4-5 hr battery life now, but if they went with UMD again, it would be more like 2-3hrs tops

[Chozo Ghost]

The flash memory cards used in current handhelds are not the same thing as old-school cartridges.

QFT. The old school cartridges were basically circuit boards, so they were a lot more expensive to manufacture. The newer stuff is just flash memory which is a lot different.

And as for why optical media isn't used in mobile devices I think that's pretty obvious. Optical drives require a lot more energy (meaning they drain batteries faster), take up more space, and can be screwed up by the device being jolted.

[UncleBob]

I fell into your misdirect though.  Whether you feel Microsoft gouges customers is irrelevant.  Nintendo doesn't follow the competition in other areas so

...they should have to follow the competition in these areas.  Or something.

This is where I strongly disagree with you.  You are basing your info off of two gimped online systems (Wii and 3DS).  The PS2 had 20% of it's users get online, 360 has about 60%,

Interesting fact there about the 360.

I'd love to see actual sales on the "core" versions of the 360 vs. the "pro"/"elite" versions.

Because I know we've sold a lot more of the cheaper ones with smaller hard drives and I've never heard a complaint.

1.  Exclusive games: NBA Jam onfire edition is 900 mb and reasonably priced.  Tons more games like this, some bigger.  If you're online and that's the only way to get the game, don't know why you'd pass up good games.

Interesting.

Quick search (although the source is VGChartz - if someone can find an alternate source, please do.) pegs the PS3's tie-in ratio at 9.16... so at 900 MB, that's just barely over 8 GB (8.05GB, to be exact).

2.  Game patches.  GT5 has like 3 gb of patches.  Yeah, it'd be nice if they shipped a complete game, but they've added a bunch to this game.  And basically every game I put in my ps3 has some patch to update the game and most of them are sizely.

Yeah... my one time playing a PS3, the first hour was literally spent downloading patches (seriously, I got a text from a friend right when we started... when it was finally done getting everything, I looked at the time again).

If the trade off for not having an overpriced hard drive pre-installed is no patches... I'll take that.

3.  Demos/other online things.  If you're online and it's free, why not download?  Demo's and videos online can be several gigs in size.

Delete 'em when you're done.  They're demos.

For comparison sake, I have about 10 WiiWare games and about 50 vc games downloaded for a total size of about 1 gb.  On my PS3, I have not downloaded a full retail game.  I have about 30 games, patches, and save files come to about 65 gb.

And for you, you have the option of external storage.  Isn't that awesome? 

Let me throw this one at you.  Let's say you have a 360... Without external storage, what's the maximum amount of data you can store on the system without potentially breaking any laws or getting your console banned as you previously suggested?

What's the largest internal hard drive you can get for your PS3?  Has anyone released any PS3 compatible 1TB drives yet?

With an external memory solution, depending on how it's implemented, I could, in theory, have a url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822165298]12 TB hard drive hooked up for enough storage to hold every Wii U game, video, and demo to ever be released in digital format.  Heck, in theory, I could hook up four of these suckers to my Wii U.

So... how's an external solution better?

I see the only viable solution as having a usb hard drive, which requires 2 additional cables (to Wii and to Power) and addtional space on the shelf.  I don't see that as a good thing.

A) Still not sure what this has to do with being "lazy"
B) There are hard drives (up to 1TB, as far as I'm aware) that are powered via USB and don't require a power cable.
C)  Judging by what we know of the Wii U's size, the system plus an external hard drive will likely still be smaller than a PS3.
 

Ignoring Wii sales to make a point?

 

How am I ignoring Wii sales?  When the Wii sold 4 times as many systems as the GCN, shouldn't the Wii version of Twilight Princess sold more than Wind Waker by leaps and bounds?
 

Yeah, my point was storage lost the N64 war.  Nintendo's response wasn't let's fix the storage issue, as all of the next consoles they've made have had gimped storage.

...gimped proprietary  storage... which likely cost more...

The focus on being cheap now instead of matching standard features.  When a console is cheaper, people wonder why.  And when the answer is they cut standard features, they aren't impressed.

 

This is a line of crap.  None of Nintendo's disc storage issues were a result of cutting costs or being "cheaper".  Nintendo chose carts because of the load times on CDs and for anti-piracy measures.  They went with the custom mini-DVDs on the 'cube for - again - anti-piracy measures.  And with custom DVDs (that hold the same capacity as the 360), again... anti-piracy measures.

What I'd like to see is a thread in 6 years and see if the people that say 8 gb is sufficient for them found that to be the case.

People who are okay with 8GB aren't likely to troll NWR forums...

[NWR_insanolord]

As far as the whole "confusing" angle goes, I'm certain there will be companies that sell hard drives branded as Wii U compatible, preformatted and ready to plug and play right out of the box. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Nintendo did it themselves. Sure, you could probably get a better deal doing it yourself, and you'll have that option, but those people will be accomodated.

[UncleBob]

While I'm sure it would have been overpriced, when the Wii was said to be compatible with external Hard Drives, I was expecting someone to release a new version of the stand that had the hard drive inside of it...

[tendoboy1984]

The flash memory cards used in current handhelds are not the same thing as old-school cartridges.

QFT. The old school cartridges were basically circuit boards, so they were a lot more expensive to manufacture. The newer stuff is just flash memory which is a lot different.

And as for why optical media isn't used in mobile devices I think that's pretty obvious. Optical drives require a lot more energy (meaning they drain batteries faster), take up more space, and can be screwed up by the device being jolted.

Ok, so why don't the manufacturers just use flash memory cards for console games? Discs and disc drives are fragile and they generate heat. If these flash memory cards are so efficient for handheld games, then they should be used more in home consoles.

[NWR_insanolord]

Because, as I said, at the capacity required for modern console games it would be much too expensive to outweigh the negative aspects of discs. 2 GB cards for 3DS games are one thing, but with PS3 and Wii U discs holding upwards of 25 GB, the sheer volume of optical media at far cheaper prices can't be beat.

[tendoboy1984]

Because, as I said, at the capacity required for modern console games it would be much too expensive to outweigh the negative aspects of discs. 2 GB cards for 3DS games are one thing, but with PS3 and Wii U discs holding upwards of 25 GB, the sheer volume of optical media at far cheaper prices can't be beat.

Then game developers shouldn't make their games that big. There are thousands of smaller games on PSN, Xbox Live, iOS, etc. Games don't have to be that big to be good.


In other words, "size doesn't matter".

[broodwars]

Because, as I said, at the capacity required for modern console games it would be much too expensive to outweigh the negative aspects of discs. 2 GB cards for 3DS games are one thing, but with PS3 and Wii U discs holding upwards of 25 GB, the sheer volume of optical media at far cheaper prices can't be beat.

Then game developers shouldn't make their games that big. There are thousands of smaller games on PSN, Xbox Live, iOS, etc. Games don't have to be that big to be good.


In other words, "size doesn't matter".

Yeah, let's see if you're still saying that after you've actually played AAA HD games like Assassin's Creed 3, Tomb Raider, etc.  Or better yet, let's see if you're still saying that after a company like Retro releases something like a new Metroid, crammed on a dual-layer disc with hours of voice acting; gorgeous environments; and highly detailed character models.

[NWR_insanolord]

Because, as I said, at the capacity required for modern console games it would be much too expensive to outweigh the negative aspects of discs. 2 GB cards for 3DS games are one thing, but with PS3 and Wii U discs holding upwards of 25 GB, the sheer volume of optical media at far cheaper prices can't be beat.

Then game developers shouldn't make their games that big. There are thousands of smaller games on PSN, Xbox Live, iOS, etc. Games don't have to be that big to be good.


In other words, "size doesn't matter".

Yes, because putting arbitrary limitations on development is a great way to attract support for your hardware.

[ThePerm]

so uh....the wii u is going to have a lot of RAM right? more so than ps3 and xbox 360.....?

so do you need as much internal space anymore?

The current convention is that you stream content off the HDD rather than disc so it runs faster. On ps3/360 you need a high transfer rate between the HDD so that games run worth a damn, but if theres more RAM on Wii U, you could put a lot more content on the RAM, so it wouldn't matter if the data was stored on a drive with a slower transfer rate. You could keep a bunch of stuff in memory without the need to stream it off a hard drive.

[tendoboy1984]

Because, as I said, at the capacity required for modern console games it would be much too expensive to outweigh the negative aspects of discs. 2 GB cards for 3DS games are one thing, but with PS3 and Wii U discs holding upwards of 25 GB, the sheer volume of optical media at far cheaper prices can't be beat.

Then game developers shouldn't make their games that big. There are thousands of smaller games on PSN, Xbox Live, iOS, etc. Games don't have to be that big to be good.


In other words, "size doesn't matter".

Yes, because putting arbitrary limitations on development is a great way to attract support for your hardware.

Xbox Live, iOS, and PSN have size limits, yet they still get plenty of developer support.


And I was saying it would be much easier for console games to come on flash memory cards instead of fragile discs. There are 32 GB (and larger) cards, so it wouldn't be a huge problem.


Game systems already come with internal flash storage, so why not use that same type of storage for the game media? It's more reliable and faster than discs.

[Chozo Ghost]

And I was saying it would be much easier for console games to come on flash memory cards instead of fragile discs. There are 32 GB (and larger) cards, so it wouldn't be a huge problem.

Except in terms of cost.

Game systems already come with internal flash storage, so why not use that same type of storage for the game media? It's more reliable and faster than discs.

What part of an optical disc being only about 10 cents worth of plastic do you not understand? Flash memory is superior in a lot of ways, but it costs more, and unless its a handheld it makes no sense to use flash memory. The reason its used for handhelds is because the disadvantages of an optical drive are a really big deal and so the extra cost is justified, but on a console which is plugged into a wall and doesn't need to be so small it can fit in someone's pockets the negatives of optical media don't matter so much, so in those cases optical media wins out.

Older consoles used cartridges because optical drives either hadn't been invented yet, or were too cost prohibitive. But from the PS1 onward the cost of optical drives came down enough that it made sense. It still doesn't make much sense for a handheld, and that's why aside from the PSP we will probably never seen an optical drive based handheld ever again.

[Adrock]

Game systems already come with internal flash storage, so why not use that same type of storage for the game media? It's more reliable and faster than discs.

This has already been answered. It's more expensive. Flash memory will always be more expensive than disc because it costs more to make them.

It's nice that Wii U discs start at 25GB per layer though I doubt many games will need that unless developers start haphazardly using uncompressed data just because they can. I believe 3DS can handle up to 8GB cards. I'm not sure about Vita but it's at least 8GB. Apparently, Blazblue is the largest Vita game at 3.32GB. Nintendo probably could have gone with 4GB-16GB cards to start (32GB later) for Wii U, depending on a game's needs. However, and here's the most important part, 3rd parties may see it as an additional barrier for supporting Wii U. There are pros to using cards but the one major con is 3rd parties could just throw their hands up and say, "**** this. A disc costs us like a half-penny and a coupon at Starbucks and you want us to spend $X per card?" As a gamer, I love the pros of cards. I'm a big proponent for cards though I've changed my tune slightly. Sure, the big 3rd parties don't seem to be complaining about using cards on DS, 3DS, and Vita. They might if cards were used on Wii U. Unless Nintendo could cut them a deal and keep prices lower and ensure supplies remain steady to high, they're probably better off having Panasonic continue to press discs for them.

[Ymeegod]

Depends on the gamer and how many games he/she plans to download and how many full retail games will require space.  There's are some games out there that eats 20+ GB just by themselves, Rage anyone but even without that there's been plenty of game "patches" or updates that can eat up 1GB easily (my SF4 comes to mind).  So you'll either have to buy multiple SD cards or just one large HD.

In terms of pricing one 320GB harddrive is like $40-50 vs 2 32GB (64GB total) SD cards for the same price.

Some people might not fill up 64GB will a couple of indie games and patches but there's plenty of people out there that would fill that within a month or 2. 

[McDaniel-77]

I'll save my Wii U games on USB-SSD or 32 GB SD Card.
When I copy all my Wii stuff over to Wii U there will be 6-7 GB left. If you consider a Wii U game as big as a DVD game or a Steam download game:
Diablo III is close to 8 GB
Crysis is close to 8 GB
Renegade Ops is close to 3 GB
From Dust is close to 2 GB
Legend of Grimrock is 0.8 GB
Hard Reset is around 2,2 GB
...
There is space for 10-40 games on a 32 GB SD Card - 30 bucks today.
 

[Kytim89]

Here is a website for the install sizes for Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii games:
 
http://www.stripesonfire.com/xbox-360-game-install-list/
 
http://www.perezstart.com/sony/ps3/ps3-game-data-install-list-optional-or-required-games-listed/9387/
 
http://wiki.gbatemp.net/wiki/USB_Game_Compatibility_Table#.23

[ets11296]

at least since its low memory, the price will be lower most likely
 

[LudicrousDa3ve]

What a discussion, wow. I can see the worries about less tech savvy customers having trouble with different storage solutions. It is still manageable, though; and as a tech-centric guy who is constantly making space on his 360's 60GB proprietary HD, the option to just buy an affordable 1TB external or whatever is extremely attractive.
   There will be plenty of things to eat up plenty of space, and I'm sure Nintendo plans on informing their users. Maybe not always in the smartest ways, but they will. 

[tendoboy1984]

Also, homebrew on the Wii could support NTFS, so I hope Nintendo can work something out in that regard.

How are these homebrew guys able to program stuff that isn't supported by the console? Are they all smarter than Nintendo's own engineers?

[NWR_insanolord]

Nintendo could do everything they've done, and much more, they just choose not to.

[Chozo Ghost]

Nintendo could do everything they've done, and much more, they just choose not to.

I think this ties in with that argument in another thread about Nintendo being Lazy.

[MegaByte]

It's important to distinguish between the developers and the decision makers. For instance, Nintendo already made a hard drive system for Wii that works very much like the homebrew solution, but they limited it to use in hospitals.

[tendoboy1984]

Because, as I said, at the capacity required for modern console games it would be much too expensive to outweigh the negative aspects of discs.

Here's a solution, make your games smaller. There isn't a rule that says console games have to be cinematic epics that must be over 8 GB. I would prefer having smaller games that can be finished quickly than having to slog through a 20 hour interactive movie.


Remember when games were just games?