Same as early 2006 and mostly stable for the last six months.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
GI.biz: "Wii U less powerful than PS3, Xbox 360, developers say"
- Thread starter Hoo-doo
- Start date
Of course it's fun, you can use the dividends you get from Nintendo stock to buy a proper game console.
such fearful symmetry.
Well spun good sir. Well spun.
I totally agree that is all that matters to them.
My head explodes when it seems to be all that matters to some gamers.
Its fundamentally important that the industry and the players within it remain profitable so that we as end consumers carry on having an industry to support and enjoy.
Given that we have lost console manufacturers in the past and continue to lose development houses on a regular basis I don't know why that's so difficult to understand.
Profit only leads to a healthy industry and if Nintendo want to protect their financial interests while delivering new hardware then all power to them.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Don't know about you, but I rather have my favorite gaming company survives and thrives, especially inside the seemingly unhealthy situation in the gaming industry right now.
See SEGA for example. On the hindsight they released scores upon scores of "hardcore" games like Sonic Generations, Binary Domain, Bayonetta, Vanquish, Valkyria Chronicles, and from the "hardcore" point of view they are doing really well... but lo and behold! right now they are in a deep shit financially. Do you honestly think that their "hardcore" fans don't care about this?
To say that the financial situation of your most favorite gaming company has nothing to do or can directly impact you as their fan (by saying all that matters to them and not us) is just divorced from the reality of the situation.
specialguy
Banned
Yeah, I remember when Nintendo stock was hot, $70 or something, round Wii heyday.
Isn't it like $20 now?
Too be fair, most traditional gaming stocks suck nowdays while social gaming stocks rise. Microsoft is the only one of the big 3 to "escape" because they're not only gaming.
Ironically, to those it gives a boner to, they tend to be fanatics who believe WiiU will be powerful. To those who are dispassionate, they just use this obvious fact to state why WiiU isn't going to have any horsepower (which drives the Nintendophiles nuts).
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Fanboys. Or stock holders.
That said, it does make sense why Nintendo can't take massive hits on their consoles. MS, and to a lesser extent Sony, have other streams of cash to fall back on. Nintendo only has video games.
In any other art form I disagree. And lo and behold I disagree in this artform too.
It's the responsibility of the accountants to keep these companies in the black. I just enjoy the games.
I just don't care. It's the industry. I liked Commodore, they went under, I found my kicks elsewhere. I liked Sega, they went under, I found my kicks elsewhere. When Sony go under, I'll do the same. Meanwhile, PC is going nowhere and I can get my kicks there too!
I guess the difference between me 'n' thee is that I don't have a "favourite gaming company".
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
You know, the funny thing is, I really think that the ones really going nuts about WiiU isn't going to have any serious firepower in it are actually those not in the Nintendo camp.
Good for you, you unique beautiful snowflake. But most gamers are actually quite involved to their favorite gaming company, even in the PC camp like the case with Blizzard and especially Valve... if Valve, for example, by some crazy incident goes under I am willing to bet many GAF members will freak out like crazy.
To say that the health of video gaming companies has nothing to do with how we enjoy video game is just, like I said, divorced from the reality.
Also, your nonchalant attitude towards the health of video game companies and the industry in general is so... hmm, how should I say this... "casual"? (not that this is necessarily wrong, mind you)
I am not talking about myself or anyone tech savvy. The developers will research into the benefits of higher specs. Insomniac said that their experience is, that people can't even tell the difference between 30 and 60fps framerate.
Also if you sit far from your TV you don't really benefit from the jump that much. It's much more noticeable in PC displays when you sit one foot from them.
D.Lo
Member
Konami has gone to hell and no-one else fills that void for me. The great Sega has gone, there's no-one who is quite the same.
I have favourite gaming companies in the same way I have favourite bands. It's not like I'll quit listening to music if my favourite band breaks up or starts sucking, but it's not some moral failing to be sad about it.
Do you get all self-righteous at fans of TV shows that get canned for low ratings, telling them 'You're a moron to care! There are heaps of other shows!'?
specialguy
Banned
You miss the most likely outcome as it currently stands imo, the core gaming market consolidates around Xb720, Wii U is a complete and utter failure of epic proportions, and the PS4, while a decently powerful console, is quickly left by the roadside as "decent" isn't enough to compel anybody to not buy the more powerful 720. Microsoft attains a near total victory.
Not trolling, that's how I see it.
More interesting to me in such a scenario is, faced with total defeat, how quickly do Nintendo (for sure) and Sony (possibly) scrap the Wii U and PS4 and bring out new consoles? What does that end up looking like? It could get ugly. Will Nintendo under ANY circumstances ever go for a high powered console again?
This generation dragged on 8 years, but people dont realize that was mostly because the situation uniquely allowed it too, none of the three players was soundly defeated, they all had viable consoles. There's no reason to expect that to be the case every time. If one of the players is faced with certain defeat and it's clear 2 years in (likely less than that in Wii U's case imo), we all know what is going to happen.
Now dealing with your points individually...
Wont happen, core gamers will consolidate where the power is, provided it's a reasonable gap (assuming equal software support, which didnt exist in PS2/Xbox era but now does). Non-core gamers dont care about power, but Wii motion controls have lost their hold on them, and I dont think the tablet controller will have any pull at all for casuals.
Possible if PS4 and 720 are close in power.
If we cant even be sure Wii U is better than PS360, well, this one isn't happening...
...this is just unheard of and impossible...
Dreamcasted is a term used when a more powerful shadow looms over an early, less powerful entrant in a gen (EG, what the PS2 did to the Dreamcast) so you're using it in the wrong context. Wii U is the one that would be Dreamcasted. Terminology aside, again if we're not even talking more power than Ps360, no chance, and almost no chance in any case. Part of the problem is best case Wii U will still be far behind PS4/720, another problem is to truly exploit being first you must be cheap, eg 199, and Wii U will be expensive because of the controller.
I suspect I'm in the majority given the way people jumped from Sony to MS this gen. I really don't think the average gamer is as invested as you think in the business side of things.
I have never been short of excellent games to play since 1984 when I started playing games. Never. Companies come & go but excellent games are always being made by someone, somewhere. I don't need to sit and fret about the financials of some mega-corporation.
Can't be arsed to rebuff the 'casual' dig, judging by how much some people care about this, you're dead right. I'm casual as fuck.
I suspect someone out there is catering for you, you just haven't found them yet.
I just can't understand people that narrow their choices down to one or two companies. You're setting yourself up for disappointment.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
A majority of customers this generation preferred consoles with the letter "i" in their manufacturers names. What does this tell us about vowels?
Imagine the 3DS has 1 GB of ram, do you think it would be more powerful than the Xbox 360?
It's the letter 'O' you want to keep an eye on. That's the floozy vowel.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Like I said, good for you.
Your personal feelings doesn't change the situation, though, in that the well-being of video game companies will directly impact our enjoyment and that a lot of people--especially the so-called "hardcore" ones--are invested quite deeply in their preferred/favorite gaming company.
Oh, me mentioning that casual thing is honestly not a dig or anything like that, so it's not like you need to be arsed about anything in the first place.
"i" is the coolest of all vowels, although I will pay good money to have Nintendo changing the name "Wii" to "Woo".
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
The situation as it currently stands shows a PS3 very close to the Xbox 360 worldwide despite being 1 year younger... I'd say it is far from a near total victory for MS (especially when they are both aiming for second place), I'd say the two consoles are virtually neck and neck.
That's not how economics works. If Nintendo or any other company doesn't do well it just means that they haven't made the right business decisions, and I really don't care either way.
The demand for videogames is big and isn't going anywhere. And where there is big demand there will always be someone to answer it with supply. Even if Nintendo drops out of the hardware race they'll still keep making their multimillion-selling games (Pokemon on iOS? Hell yes!) on other platforms.
Let me put it a different way. If I was a Wii-only gamer, I wouldn't have enjoyed last gen because Nintendo made record profits. I'd have been gutted that they skimped out and as such, I didn't get a proper GTA, Bioshock, CoD, Red Dead, LA Noire, AssCreed etc..
Still, I'm not a Wii-only gamer and maybe those cheerleading the Ninty profits aren't either. Even if they are, takes all sorts, different strokes, blah blah blah.
RAM is not some magic ingredient of tech that fixes everything
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
But of course. Regardless, hoping the company you prefer doing well, especially in such a hostile environment right now where companies fall one after another and/or bleeding from all the holes, is not really a sentiment that is hard to understand.
Like I said, a lot of people are invested in the well-being of their favorite companies--not you, and that's perfectly okay--but many people are, like Valve in the PC camp and Nintendo in the console/handheld camp.
But what part of it are you disagreeing with? I don't understand why a company staying in the black is a bad thing. Is there any example where a console manufacturer heamoraging money has been good for consumers or the wider industry?
Of course its Nintendo's accountants problem, but if Nintendo's accountant tells Nintendo they can afford to produce a good console, while still introducing new features and games without having to be at the bleeding edge of technology, then im fine with that.
I just enjoy the games too. It doesn't matter to me in any real sense how much money Nintendo print. But I like to support a healthy industry, and I don't think pissing money up the wall is healthy in ANY business. There's enough corporations doing that in this climate as it is.
Is that the subset of the gaming audience who are *really* obsessed with Netflix?
"healthy"
Loosely speaking, RAM's a catalyst. It's not pure power, but it affects how much you can *do* with that power.
It's a little like asking why a car can have a massive fuel tank but still be less powerful than a supercar with a thimbleful of fuel.
Well, yes, but if all else is pretty much the same, then the extra RAM is going to do a lot, isn't it?
So would we be assuming that the CPU and GPU are going to be weaker than what's in the PS3/360?
What's not healthy about companies that stay within budget and turn a profit?
I don't even think there's a case to argue lower specs stifle creativity either, given this is Nintendo we are talking about.
Where is that figure coming from? Financial results? The problem with this is that it's going to factor in what they spent on R&D for the PSP, the PSPGo and the PS3, which must be a ridiculous number, and with the PSPGo being nothing more than a money sinkhole and the PS3 costing them shitloads as well.
They sold over 150M PS2 and it's still selling, 12 years after release, and total software sales are probably ridiculous as well. So yeah, if you consider money coming from the PS2 only, I have a hard time imagining that it's lower than the Wii.
Betta Lines
Member
So I watched that Zelda tech demo again. People went mad for it because Nintendo have never done something remotely close to current-gen visuals, so it was a joy to see.
However, as nice as it is, it looks totally doable on PS3 or 360, particularly as a non-playable real-time render. So if Wii U had roughly the same power or even slightly under, that wouldn't be a massive surprise tbh.
However, as nice as it is, it looks totally doable on PS3 or 360, particularly as a non-playable real-time render. So if Wii U had roughly the same power or even slightly under, that wouldn't be a massive surprise tbh.
bigtroyjon
Member
Nintendo was making a profit on the Wii hardware from the get go and their software sales skewed a lot more towards first party. Sony lost a big chunk of money launching the PS2 which tells us that they were losing money on hardware initially.
It's a safe assumption that the Wii made quite a bit more money than the PS2. Shoot, it's likely at this point that the 360 will make 3-5 billion dollars and also be ahead of the PS2 but we won't really know now that Skype has muddled the waters beyond what anyone could reasonably estimate.
As many have said though, the "garden" demo looks far better.
maquiladora
Member
Man, E3 just can't come soon enough.
wonderdung
Member
To be honest the "anonymous THQ developer" quote that people are pasting here sounds just as much like bullshit as anything in the original article.
pslayer666
Member
I couldn't care less if it's more or less powerful than the 360/PS3.
What I do care about the most is the price and the games. If the price is right (under 300 bucks), I most certainly wouldn't say no to it.
What I do care about the most is the price and the games. If the price is right (under 300 bucks), I most certainly wouldn't say no to it.
smuldegspaj
Banned
If it is less powerful than 360. How is it suppose to emulate the wii?
360 couldnt emulate xbox.
Or maybe the cpu is a three core wii cpu?
360 couldnt emulate xbox.
Or maybe the cpu is a three core wii cpu?
What quote???
Thats exactly how I feel. All I care about is price and games. If it delivers on both then I will be more than happy.
Rumored WiiU specs say CPU is PowerPC architecture (also used in gamecube, 360, and PS3). Backwards compatibility shouldn't be difficult.
360 does a fair job of emulating the xbox, which is better than the Wii in some respects.
Are you kidding?? the wii perfectly emulates Gamecube...all games work, which is something doesnt happen with 360 and the original xbox...
Damon Bennet
Member
Read again and understand what he says
He says emulation, but the Wii is a Gamecube....so its runs the games perfectly, its not an emulator.
I wasn't saying that the 360 emulates the Xbox better than how the Wii plays Gamecube games. I was saying that the 360 emulates plenty of Xbox games, some of which are more demanding than Wii games, so it follows that 360 level hardware would be able to emulate Wii games (though it's certainly not that simple in practice).
How well does something like a 8800GT handle dolphin?
Similar threads
- Poll