# Reggie Fils-Aime points to the PS2 and Wii in defense of the Wii U's power



## Deleted_171835 (Jul 2, 2013)

In an interview with Forbes, Reggie Fils-Aime spoke about the Wii U. When asked how the Wii U will compete against the PS4 and Xbox One thanks to the differences in processing power, he said...


> *"The processing power of the hardware really doesn't matter.* *I say that with confidence looking at the most recent generation of home consoles where the Wii*, which the broad industry looked at and said "boy, that seems to be underpowered" but sold 100 million units globally. And the consumer saw the innovation of the Wii Remote and the active gameplay we offered.
> 
> Even if you look at the generation before that, *it was Sony's product that was underpowered compared to the other two home consoles and yet they won that generation.* In the end it comes down to the games. The games drive the install base, the games excite the consumer. We feel excited about the games not just from a first party perspective, But from third party as well."


http://www.gamerevolution.com/news/reggie-filsaime-points-to-ps2-in-defense-of-wii-u-power-20195


----------



## Qtis (Jul 2, 2013)

Your lower image is broken for some reason..

As for the news, get the games rolling! Many of the recent Nintendo events only had "Out in 2014, Out in fall 2014, Out after 2013". While there are a few very good games already, they alone don't warrant a buy for many people. Especially with the relatively huge libraries of the Wii/PS3/360 generation that are available for quite a bit cheaper (yeah, yeah.. previous gen.. *grumble* *grumble*). As for the future, both Sony and Microsoft are at an advantage for 3rd party support, if the WiiU ends up being vastly inferior.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 2, 2013)

Oh Reggie, the irony in what you're saying is hilarious since the Wii U is both underpowered _and_ has less and less publishers backing it as more time goes by.

I'm sure the Wii U will bounce back, but it won't be like the Wii and I don't think anything will ever be like the PS2.


----------



## shakirmoledina (Jul 2, 2013)

I think miyamoto has clarified that bad advertising with devs, publishers, companies etc is the reason.
power as reggie is saying is not the deciding factor.


----------



## Flame (Jul 2, 2013)

Reggie please get rid of this thing where 3rd party devs need to suck your dick for you to allow them to develop on your system. i.e. binding of isaac


----------



## Law (Jul 2, 2013)

The playstation 2 had a lot of games. A lot of good games, and a lot of trash games. It basically had something for everybody.

Is the Wii U anything more than ports and first party Nintendo titles (excluding Bayonetta 2) yet?

Power didn't really matter to anybody in the PS2 era, did it? High spec PC gaming wasn't a big thing, and the PS2 was a huge step up from the PS1 in terms of 3D quality.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2013)

The PS2 was _"underpowered"_ in comparison to the XBox and the Gamecube, however not to the point of being _unable_ to launch multiplatform games, and that will be the case with the WiiU sooner or later. The Wii was underpowered but it had a charming Motion Controls mechanic at the height of Motion Control's popularity, a fantastic advertising campaign, a clear and defined target audience and a very approachable price point in comparison to the much _"stronger"_ competitors - none of those are present in WiiU's case.

If the WiiU is to shoot into the same niche as the Wii, it has to become dirt-cheap - plain and simple. It has to become this cool and affordable gift for holidays of all-sorts, just like the Wii. No other maneuver will secure its position at this point when by spending $40-100 more _(depending on which bundle we're talking about, but let's face it - nobody wants the Basic Wii U model)_ you can get yourself a PS4.

I've been saying this for a while now but I'll say it again - scrap the useless Basic bundle, release branded Nintendo enclosures/external HDD's _(because frankly, customers are idiots and telling them that "they can connect an external drive to the system" isn't always enough - capitalize on this by making your own accessories)_, slash the price and you'll secure yourself a place on the market, even if at a loss. This will spur developer interest and the games will start flowing naturally. Sometimes it's good to take one for the team early on to reap profits later, and this is the time to take one for the team.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Jul 2, 2013)

That's why Resident Evil 4 looked better on the GC than on PS2. Sadly most multiplatform third-party titles looked bad on the GC because of the laziness of the devs.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 2, 2013)

More power doesn't guarantee better games. Better games (and more games) must be brought to a console in order for it to succeed.  To all those who think the Wii U will lose solely based on its hardware being inferior to the others, wait for the games before fear-mongering, mmm kay?


----------



## GameWinner (Jul 2, 2013)

Big difference between PS2 and Wii U: PS2 had third party support.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 2, 2013)

GameWinner said:


> Big difference between PS2 and Wii U: PS2 had third party support.


 
That's pretty understandable too - by the time the Gamecube and the XBox were released, everybody and their dog had a PlayStation 2. Developing for the system made sense, underpowered in comparison or not - it was still going to push those sales like a steamroller.

I forgot to mention that Reggie sticks to specs alone, not _the capabilities_. The PS2 supported DVD playback, the XBox supported DVD playback, the Gamecube did not support DVD playback. The XBox was Online-Ready out of the box, the PS2 was made Online-Ready via an adapter and later Ethernet was included in the Slim revision to support it out of the box, the Gamecube used a Network Adapter and only ever had four games that even _supported_ Online. One of those consoles sold the least units - _hmmm, which one?_

Raw numbers alone don't make up for the entirety of the console's real-life performance - it's what the console can _actually do_ that interests the End User. Effectively both the PS2 and the XBox could be used as home entertainment centers as well as consoles, and that was a _big deal_ at the time of their release - the Gamecube? Not so much.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 2, 2013)

Wow some top class diplomatic/choice phrasing there. Even if the can not throw down the gauntlet in terms of farting out a decent machine it seems they have some world class marketing speak.


----------



## emigre (Jul 2, 2013)

The difference is with the Wii, Nintendo knew what they where doing. With the Wii U, they haven't got a clue.


----------



## narutofan777 (Jul 2, 2013)

ps2 is better than wii u.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 2, 2013)

emigre said:


> The difference is with the Wii, Nintendo knew what they where doing. With the Wii U, they haven't got a clue.


 

Even I admit that aspect. Nintendo needs do some serious marketing overhaul in order for it to gain momentum.




narutofan777 said:


> PS2 is better than Wii u.



Bitch please
PSX was better than either.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 2, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> To all those who think the Wii U will lose solely based on its hardware being inferior to the others, wait for the games before fear-mongering, mmm kay?


 


the_randomizer said:


> wait for the games


 

We have been waiting. We are still waiting. That's the problem.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 2, 2013)

Gahars said:


> We have been waiting. We are still waiting. That's the problem.


 

They will next month, them month after that, etc. The major issue is that pacing or the rate at which games are released is abysmal and inexcusable.  The gaming drought is a plague.


----------



## RedCoreZero (Jul 3, 2013)

Where's the fucking commercials where's the fucking ads?Nintendo stop with the shit, release the games, and get it out there!


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2013)

maniax300 said:


> Where's the fucking commercials where's the fucking ads?Nintendo stop with the shit, release the games, and get it out there!
> _*semi-accurate but still poor economic insight*_


 
First and foremost, you can't accurately compare a 2012 launch to a 2005 or 2006 launch - those systems are a generation apart and we're seeing an increase in sales of consoles generation after generation - one would _expect_ sales exceeding those of the previous generation systems. While you're at it, you might as well compare it to NES sales in the same time frame and praise it to the heavens as a console that's better than the NES. Results from 2005-2006 have limited relevance in 2013.

Moreover, the PS3 cost $499/$599 at launch depending on the bundle, the XBox 360 cost $299/399. This means that the PS3 cost _considerably_ more than the WiiU and the XBox 360 Core cost just as much the basic WiiU, _however_ the standard model _(which everybody wanted anyways because the Core one sucked)_ was _more_ expensive than the $359 Deluxe WiiU.

What I'm saying here is that the comparison is inaccurate because the systems are simply too far apart and they very in price - if you want to compare it to something, wait a couple more months and check how the PS4/XBox One situation will look like after 4 months from their release. The economic standing fluctuates and comparing sales results that are 6 years apart while the systems do not have matching prices is a little bit of a stretch.

Moreover, you have to take into account the changing value of the major world currencies as well as the Yen and Yuan appreciation rates which fell down _immensly_ after the recent economical crisis. 2 million dollars made in 2005-2006 does not have the same value as 2 million dollars made in 2013, so in a lot of ways, it's entirely possible that with such a time gap, you could end up earning _"more with less"_ so to speak.

//Economy


----------



## assassinz (Jul 3, 2013)

With the touchscreen controller, the Wii U is more like a NDS in terms of game control options.  I'm surprised that all the 3rd party developers that made games for NDS aren't onboard with the Wii U.

Personally, I think we are going to see some great games on Wii U once developers are familiar with the hardware capabilities/possibilities.


----------



## totalnoob617 (Jul 3, 2013)

nintendo :  rush the system out 1st before any other next gen consoles so it has weakest HW, then  make no games for it so nobody has any incentive to buy it
 great marketing stratergy reggie, you should have stayed at pizza hut slangin cheese sticks and p'zones


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

totalnoob617 said:


> nintendo : rush the system out 1st before any other next gen consoles so it has weakest HW, then make no games for it so nobody has any incentive to buy it
> great marketing stratergy reggie, you should have stayed at pizza hut slangin cheese sticks and p'zones


 

Having the weakest hardware has no relevancy. The console needs more game support, to hell with being the most or least powerful.


----------



## totalnoob617 (Jul 3, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Having the weakest hardware has no relevancy.


 
I am just saying that by rushing the system out 1st you pretty much set yourself back in hardware terms and since they had no games lined up there was no reason to rush the system out


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 3, 2013)

Someone posted this on HacksDen:


Spoiler










I'm not saying I believe the Wii U will be like the Dreamcast (Nintendo is going to be fine), but it's still funny.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 3, 2013)

I really don't care about this hardware crap anymore, I just want them to start pumping out games already. I am enjoying the games I have now, but it would be nice see more coming out.


----------



## elgarta (Jul 3, 2013)

They need a DS/3DS adapter for the Wii-U, like the old Super Gameboy and GC-GBA player. That would probably drive some sales, especialy for those who don't want to buy a handheld to play some of the games.


----------



## NakedFaerie (Jul 3, 2013)

The problem with the WiiU is not everyone is interested in Mario or Sonic so there are many people not interested in those games which leaves no reason to get a WiiU.
I got one thinking there were a lot of 3rd party devs making games for it. Now I hear there are none and its a WiiMario as its not for U or anyone else but Mario its now sucking bigtime.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Jul 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That's pretty understandable too - by the time the Gamecube and the XBox were released, everybody and their dog had a PlayStation 2. Developing for the system made sense, underpowered in comparison or not - it was still going to push those sales like a steamroller.
> 
> I forgot to mention that Reggie sticks to specs alone, not _the capabilities_. The PS2 supported DVD playback, the XBox supported DVD playback, the Gamecube did not support DVD playback. The XBox was Online-Ready out of the box, the PS2 was made Online-Ready via an adapter and later Ethernet was included in the Slim revision to support it out of the box, the Gamecube used a Network Adapter and only ever had four games that even _supported_ Online. One of those consoles sold the least units - _hmmm, which one?_
> 
> Raw numbers alone don't make up for the entirety of the console's real-life performance - it's what the console can _actually do_ that interests the End User. Effectively both the PS2 and the XBox could be used as home entertainment centers as well as consoles, and that was a _big deal_ at the time of their release - the Gamecube? Not so much.


When did this become a PS2 vs Gamecube discussion? Even Reggie didn't mention the gamecube, he only said the PS2 was underpowered to its competitors which is true. Seriously, is proving Nintendo to be an awful company your reason for existence?

By the way, weren't you the one making fun of Microsoft because of its main focus on entertainment capabilities?


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

RodrigoDavy said:


> When did this become a PS2 vs Gamecube discussion? Even Reggie didn't mention the gamecube, he only said the PS2 was underpowered to its competitors which is true. Seriously, is proving Nintendo to be an awful company your reason for existence?
> 
> By the way, weren't you the one making fun of Microsoft because of its main focus on entertainment capabilities?


 

It's Foxi4, to expect any less of him would be disastrous for your well-being. 




The Catboy said:


> I really don't care about this hardware crap anymore, I just want them to start pumping out games already. I am enjoying the games I have now, but it would be nice see more coming out.


 
Exactly. People are so hellbent on focusing on the X console having better hardware than Y console that they're giving themselves an aneurysm over it. My question over such "discussions" is, who the hell cares?  Hardware debates never end well, no one can truly end them. Flame wars, trolling, verbal slaughtering, etc are the end result.  It's like the Special Olympics, win or lose, you're still retarded.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2013)

RodrigoDavy said:


> When did this become a PS2 vs Gamecube discussion? Even Reggie didn't mention the gamecube, he only said the PS2 was underpowered to its competitors which is true. Seriously, is proving Nintendo to be an awful company your reason for existence?
> 
> By the way, weren't you the one making fun of Microsoft because of its main focus on entertainment capabilities?


 
I'm pointing out errors in his reasoning, that's all. Well, perhaps not errors - these are obvious truths, the term _"things we don't talk about for the sake of our argument"_ would be more appropriate. There were good reasons why the PS2 and the Wii succeeded whilst being underpowered and those reasons do not apply to the WiiU, I thought I made that point pretty clear.

*EDIT:* As for _"making fun of entertainment being the focus"_, I see a big difference between _"creating a system capable of doing a whole lot of things"_ and _"completely losing focus on what you're designing"_. All-in-One systems are _good_ and designers who make those should be _praised_ because in this day and age, unless you're a collector, there's _no reason_ to have several boxes next to your TV rather than just one if the one box _is entirely capable of doing it all_.

Thing is, you still need to hold onto that _primary focus_, which in this case is gaming. The additional features have to be the _icing on the cake, not the meal proper_. The initial problem with the XBox One and the way it was presented was that we were shown the _additional features_ but not much information was given about what the console can do in terms of gaming. This was rectified during E3, but it left a long-lasting, foul impression on the community - you just don't do that. Your console has to _"be a cool gaming platform that ALSO supports TV interaction and BluRay playback"_ not a _"TiVo box that plays games"_.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm pointing out errors in his reasoning, that's all. Well, perhaps not errors - these are obvious truths, the term _"things we don't talk about for the sake of our argument"_ would be more appropriate. There were good reasons why the PS2 and the Wii succeeded whilst being underpowered and those reasons do not apply to the WiiU, I thought I made that point pretty clear.


 

On that we can agree. Nintendo had sure as hell better market this with more efficacy. If they do, then we can have the same situation they had with the Wii, sell a crap load of units despite being the weaker console.


----------



## totalnoob617 (Jul 3, 2013)

elgarta said:


> They need a DS/3DS adapter for the Wii-U, like the old Super Gameboy and GC-GBA player. That would probably drive some sales, especialy for those who don't want to buy a handheld to play some of the games.


 
yeah like a cable or a way to wifi connect your wiiu and 3ds so you can play your 3ds games on your wii u and have a 3d tv as the top and the wiiu controller as the bottom screen, yeah like that will ever happen, short of both consoles being hacked to wii levels years from now, nintendo isn't that smart.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> On that we can agree. Nintendo had sure as hell better market this with more efficacy. If they do, then we can have the same situation they had with the Wii, sell a crap load of units despite being the weaker console.


 
I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for the WiiU, good competition always causes progress and the more good, successful platforms we have the more games we can enjoy. I just think that there are certain pre-requisites that have to be met if Nintendo wants the console to succeed, pre-requisites that I've described earlier.


----------



## SolidSnake95 (Jul 3, 2013)

The only reason Wii sold well was because it was cheap, easy to hack and Zelda/SSB/Mario wheeled in the dough. Other than that, Wii would have lost it were it not for those 3 things.


----------



## Jayro (Jul 3, 2013)

That feel when 3rd party Wii U games still don't exist... *tumbleweed rolling by*


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jul 3, 2013)

assassinz said:


> With the touchscreen controller, the Wii U is more like a NDS in terms of game control options.  I'm surprised that all the 3rd party developers that made games for NDS aren't onboard with the Wii U.
> 
> Personally, I think we are going to see some great games on Wii U once developers are familiar with the hardware capabilities/possibilities.


A lot of the devs on board with the DS were smaller companies developing experimental titles (as is often the case with jumbo sellers like the DS, PS2, and Wii). Now the DS is still around, as is its successor the 3DS which is fully DS compatible. Furthermore, developing for a lower powered handheld is probably a lot cheaper than developing for a next generation console. Throw in the fact that the DS is the best selling system of all time and the Wii U is struggling, why on earth would DS developers jump onboard the Wii U instead?


----------



## SolidSnake95 (Jul 3, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> A lot of the devs on board with the DS were smaller companies developing experimental titles (as is often the case with jumbo sellers like the DS, PS2, and Wii). Now the DS is still around, as is its successor the 3DS which is fully DS compatible. Furthermore, developing for a lower powered handheld is probably a lot cheaper than developing for a next generation console. Throw in the fact that the DS is the best selling system of all time and the Wii U is struggling, why on earth would DS developers jump onboard the Wii U instead?


 
Why not? There's a lot of oppurtunity there. If they're developing on a DS platform why not give it go on a system with better touch screen compatibility and hardware? There's hardly the difference when asking why X chooses Y over Z. The problem is just like the Vita, the devs don't want to waste their time developing on a system that is overpriced and doesn't sell well. This hardly has anything to do with the DS, they're not even in the same league here, espeically when you talk about the developers developing anything.


----------



## RedCoreZero (Jul 3, 2013)

Guys just be patient and wait for the goddamn releases or the result will be your fault.

Be honest, do you even play with your Wii U?I doubt it.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 3, 2013)

maniax300 said:


> Guys just be patient and wait for the goddamn releases or the result will be your fault.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who was that directed to?


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jul 3, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Who was that directed to?


Indeed. I'm not even sure what he's trying to say in the second half...


----------



## RedCoreZero (Jul 3, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Who was that directed to?



Nobody, no everybody that is impatient and thinks Wii U will fail.


----------



## SolidSnake95 (Jul 3, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Indeed. I'm not even sure what he's trying to say in the second half...


 
Nor do I understand the "November 2014" tidbit...if he's referring to next gen consoles I believe that's this year.


----------



## RedCoreZero (Jul 3, 2013)

SolidSnake95 said:


> Nor do I understand the "November 2014" tidbit...if he's referring to next gen consoles I believe that's this year.


2014 will be the year when we'll get the great titles.Around that time, sales will boost drastically if they release more first party games.You will realize that Nintendo knows what they're doing.

They already knew that sales were going to be bad before it released.


----------



## Ray Lewis (Jul 3, 2013)

I figured this would turn into a massive orgy of "Who can hate Nintendo the most."  Horrible launch and I believe I saw ONE commercial, lmfao.  Basic marketing, contrary to what most would expect; advertising more indicates SUCCESS in sales.  Wii U displays in stores I've seen are RIGHT there with the Wii section.  Walmart here in town had a display citing Wii U in comparison to Wii (like an upgrade).  There is almost NOTHING for people to distinguish (mass audience not the hardcore gamers) the Wii U from the Wii EXCEPT price.  It confuses me also with the games MIXED in with the Wii games!!!  When most see systems and $350 or less (might be off but you get the point) and $99 including a game and other games for $20...it is like they are still pushing the Wii.  I have not checked current Wii sales though so it is possible they are still making a profit there.

Emphasize HD, the dual screen functions of the game pad and some of what it can do, show off some game footage.  Psychology is my background and while I am no marketing expert it seems that there is NO advertising.  Almost a "Here it is, we pushed it out with no advertising, no first party bread and butter games."  MANY told me the Mario game was not unique for them (not enough).  I think they should truly drop the Wii and clear it out of stores.  EVEN if they do this once first party heavy hitters come out all they did it run a half ass launch that did not grab a large part of the market; WTF?  Then people like us ask, "Why not delay it and give some more power?  This is all opinion and I am sure Rydian and Foxfi will pick it apart (sales numbers for Wii?).  Nintendo seems like they could sell Wii U only as an update to the Wii (push it like this in stores).  High price tag, no games, little to no advertising, and here we are hearing, "Oh well, we don't care."  I have liked Nintendo but they truly screwed it.  Like a sports team that gives up a huge lead then has a comeback--eventually that is too much to overcome.  This is my 40 cents.



maniax300 said:


> 2014 will be the year when we'll get the great titles.Around that time, sales will boost drastically if they release more first party games.You will realize that Nintendo knows what they're doing.
> 
> They already knew that sales were going to be bad before it released.


Delay release and phase out Wii first, have more games at launch, possibly improve power of system.  I would be surprised if anyone disagrees with this.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 3, 2013)

maniax300 said:


> 2014 will be the year when we'll get the great titles.Around that time, sales will boost drastically if they release more first party games.You will realize that Nintendo knows what they're doing.









I'm pretty sure we all agree that the Wii U _will_ be fine.  But it isn't right now.


----------



## Ray Lewis (Jul 3, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I'm pretty sure we all agree that the Wii U _will_ be fine. But it isn't right now.


Good one joostin. It will either work as it has each generation for Nintendo OR this may be the one deficit they let get too great and cannot dig out of. I want to believe the guy who is eternally optimistic BUT I believe my view is the most realistic. Epic fail, epic come back, but also a middle ground is like Gamecube; not selling great, still "around" but not outright scrapped either. I remember going into game stores and seeing the $60 Gamecubes!!!

EDIT:  not trying to hijack or dominate the thread.  I respond to what looks interesting, back to my cave.


----------



## PityOnU (Jul 3, 2013)

Yay, Reggie!

I mean it's Nintendo, so I'm pretty much sold on this bad boy. Just waiting for the inevitable special edition red one.

Related:


----------



## RedCoreZero (Jul 3, 2013)

Ray Lewis said:


> EDIT: not trying to hijack or dominate the thread. I respond to what looks interesting, back to my cave.



You're not going Foxi, okay.


----------



## emigre (Jul 3, 2013)

I think it's safe to say Nintendo really fucked up with this one.


----------



## Lemmy Koopa (Jul 3, 2013)

I think Nintendo released their console way too fast. I get the cut of high end specs to save people money, but they honestly should at least somewhat keep up with the others in specs. Perhaps a better balance in costs and specs.

Hopefully they'll turn stuff around.


----------



## SolidSnake95 (Jul 3, 2013)

emigre said:


> I think it's safe to say Nintendo really fucked up with this one.


 
I've been stalking this site for quite some time and I've come to realize you always have something negative to say.


----------



## emigre (Jul 3, 2013)

SolidSnake95 said:


> I've been stalking this site for quite some time and I've come to realize you always have something negative to say.


 

I'm a cynic.


----------



## EnigmaXtreme (Jul 3, 2013)

I'm just waiting for 3rd party developers to stop being so Lazy/Terrified about the system


----------



## Mantis41 (Jul 3, 2013)

Reggie is a dick. The PS2 was more powerful due to the vector units. It was just difficult at first for developers to use them properly.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 3, 2013)

Mantis41 said:


> Reggie is a dick. The PS2 was more powerful due to the vector units. It was just difficult at first for developers to use them properly.


In terms of bare specs, it was at the bottom, except for maybe the Dreamcast.  Believing what just about everybody else believes doesn't make you a dick.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

Mantis41 said:


> Reggie is a dick. The PS2 was more powerful due to the vector units. It was just difficult at first for developers to use them properly.


 

Uh, it was the weakest of the three, VUs are good and all that, but hardly more powerful. The Gamecube was pretty much on par with the Xbox in terms of power. The GPU was also the weakest of the three, but why did the console sell so well? Easy. Because of the games.


----------



## ForteGospel (Jul 3, 2013)

emigre said:


> I'm a cynic.


when it comes to nintendo



the_randomizer said:


> Uh, it was the weakest of the three, VUs are good and all that, but hardly more powerful. The Gamecube was pretty much on par with the Xbox in terms of power. The GPU was also the weakest of the three, but why did the console sell so well? Easy. Because of the games.


and because it was the easiest, safest to hack. but mostly because of the games... no reason to hack a console with no install base


----------



## FireGrey (Jul 3, 2013)

I think I speak for the majority here, but the only reason I get a Nintendo console is for it's exclusives, I don't care about 3rd party support to make xbone/ps4 games have a port button for the wii u.
Though the reason I believe that they aren't doing as well as they could do is because they have still yet to release a killer game such as Wii Sports and Wii Fit for the Wii U, those things are system sellers, not to mention while Wii Sports may not seem like a great game, it is so fun to play, especially with friends.
And if you really want to be power crazy and be able to say you have super powerful hardware, get a gaming PC.
Also another factor making the Wii U getting low sales is because it's the most expensive console on the market at the moment, but once PS3 and Xbox360 have died down, the sales should rocket forwards due to the Xbone and PS4's rather high prices.
We just need to wait, I foresee the Wii U being more successful than the Xbone and PS4.


----------



## emigre (Jul 3, 2013)

ForteGospel said:


> when it comes to nintendo


 

Well they are doomed for a reason.



FireGrey said:


> I
> Though the reason I believe that they aren't doing as well as they could do is because they have still yet to release a killer game such as Wii Sports and Wii Fit for the Wii U, those things are system sellers, not to mention while Wii Sports may not seem like a great game, it is so fun to play, especially with friends.


 

Nintendo fans in are casual gaemers confirned.



FireGrey said:


> the sales should rocket forwards due to the Xbone and PS4's rather high prices.


 

The PS4 broadly speaking is retailing for around £50 more than the premium WiiU.


----------



## Youkai (Jul 3, 2013)

oO "And the consumer saw the innovation of the Wii Remote and the active gameplay we offered."
Actually I know noone at all in real life who actually like the Wii Remote ... everyone I know who had a Wii or played on mine asked instandly for Gamecube Controlers which were luckily often supported ...

And well I haven't tried out that WiiU Controller but I actually do not even want to ...
I think many people are still very cautious on buying the WiiU after their bad experience with the Wii


----------



## Arras (Jul 3, 2013)

Youkai said:


> oO "And the consumer saw the innovation of the Wii Remote and the active gameplay we offered."
> Actually I know noone at all in real life who actually like the Wii Remote ... everyone I know who had a Wii or played on mine asked instandly for Gamecube Controlers which were luckily often supported ...
> 
> And well I haven't tried out that WiiU Controller but I actually do not even want to ...
> I think many people are still very cautious on buying the WiiU after their bad experience with the Wii


Many people are saying the WiiU controller is actually very comfortable. Also I didn't mind the Wiimote, the only games I wanted a GC controller for were Mario Kart and Smash Bros because I was used to the GC version of those games. For something like Metroid Prime Trilogy it was perfect.


----------



## xist (Jul 3, 2013)

maniax300 said:


> They already knew that sales were going to be bad before it released.


 
So why release it and accumulate a metric tonne of bad PR? There wasn't any massive rush to launch the good ship U and the blind optimism that it'll all come good is seemingly poorly placed. By the time the system has any games a similarly priced system, which is a "generation ahead"*, will be out.

As for the PS2/Wii U argument....it's stupid, poorly made (the PS2 wasn't a generation of power/potential behind it's competitors), and based on no observational sense (third party support is totally incomparable between the systems). What's Reggie good for these days apart from making silly soundbites that inflame people?

*Give or take....


----------



## lokomelo (Jul 3, 2013)

When he is talking with Forbes, he is meaning that the lack of power is not a barrier to have profit, but we know that the lack of power is a barrier to devs create good games.

That's why Nintendo do not stopped on Nintendo DS and released 3DS for example.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Jul 3, 2013)

totalnoob617 said:


> I am just saying that by rushing the system out 1st you pretty much set yourself back in hardware terms and since they had no games lined up there was no reason to rush the system out


 

They had no choice. Releasing the Wii U this holiday season would be a sales disaster for them and it's the ideal time of year to release a console.


----------



## CompassNorth (Jul 3, 2013)

One of the reasons the PS2 sold so well was because it was a game console, and also was a DVD player. 
I don't know if you guys remember, but DVD players were pricey back then and the PS2 was a great choice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> They had no choice. Releasing the Wii U this holiday season would be a sales disaster for them and it's the ideal time of year to release a console.


 
The ideal time to release the WiiU was be 3 or even 4 years ago when nobody's even heard of the PS4 or the XBox One. With its superior specs it had the chance to snag a good portion of the userbase as well as a great number of multiplatform titles - right now it just seems lackluster in comparison to what's to come.


----------



## ForteGospel (Jul 3, 2013)

expect slow adoption of all three consoles


----------



## DSGamer64 (Jul 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> The ideal time to release the WiiU would be 3 or even 4 years ago when nobody's even heard of the PS4 or the XBox One and with its superior specs it had the chance to snag a good portion of the userbase as well as a good portion of multiplatform titles - right now it just seems lackluster in comparison to what's to come.


 

I don't think Nintendo was in the position to release a new console then. In terms of the financial implications and third party support, they were in no position to release a console, especially one that developers seem to think isn't as powerful as the 360 or PS3.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> I don't think Nintendo was in the position to release a new console then. In terms of the financial implications and third party support, they were in no position to release a console, especially one that developers seem to think isn't as powerful as the 360 or PS3.


 
Only a handful of idiots claim that it's weaker, and I fully realize they were not in the position to release it at that time _(as in, the design wasn't anywhere near ready)_. What I'm saying is that it would've been the ideal time to release it. Work on the WiiU should've started much earlier.

3-4 years ago it would actually have the vibe of a next generation system, but now that we've seen what other nextgens will be capable of doing, the WiiU's results pale in comparison.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Jul 3, 2013)

Actually, we have hardly seen anything other then a few glimpses of what next gen will entail. A bunch of Xbox trailers and demos that turned out to be running on a Windows 7 PC, and a few peeks at what Sony is offering don't really display much of what is coming next gen.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> Actually, we have hardly seen anything other then a few glimpses of what next gen will entail. A bunch of Xbox trailers and demos that turned out to be running on a Windows 7 PC, and a few peeks at what Sony is offering *don't really display much of what is coming next gen.*


 


Spoiler




















**inFamous: Second Son and Forza 5*


 
Denial, you are a cruel mistress.


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 3, 2013)

That mofo can cite the PS2 all day long but his excuse is a crummy one. The PS2 was also a good example of "how not to kill off your current console while releasing a new one" but hey... Nintendo loves murdering their last console in favor of the new one. Nintendo's issue in regards to me is that they decided to take six years of blue ocean progress and toss it out the fucking window. I like casual gaming. I like MOTION gaming. Instead of pushing forward and having developers find creative ways to use motion gaming, they chickened out and with with a traditional play style with a added touch screen. Are you shitting me???


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

Graphics can only go so far before they overshadow the replay value of a game. Just saying. There needs to be a balance between eye candy and how fun something is. Not saying that PS4 or Xbox One games won't be fun, but if the games suck, you can have the best graphics in the world and it will stick not be enjoyable. Just voicing my feelings on the viewpoints of those who think graphics are the be-all-end-all determining factor.



LightyKD said:


> That mofo can cite the PS2 all day long but his excuse is a crummy one. The PS2 was also a good example of "how not to kill off your current console while releasing a new one" but hey... Nintendo loves murdering their last console in favor of the new one. Nintendo's issue in regards to me is that they decided to take six years of blue ocean progress and toss it out the fucking window. I like casual gaming. I like MOTION gaming. Instead of pushing forward and having developers find creative ways to use motion gaming, they chickened out and with with a traditional play style with a added touch screen. Are you shitting me???


 
Someone here takes video games a little too seriously. Take a chill pill. What Nintendo does shouldn't affect how you live.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> The PS2 was also a good example of "how not to kill off your current console while releasing a new one" but hey... Nintendo loves murdering their last console in favor of the new one.


 
The Wii was already dead and slowly decomposing at that point.



LightyKD said:


> I like casual gaming. I like MOTION gaming. Instead of pushing forward and having developers find creative ways to use motion gaming, they chickened out and with with a traditional play style with a added touch screen. Are you shitting me???


Because touchscreen-based gaming is a standard when it comes to home consoles - it's traditional. It also cannot be used in a casual fashion at all, it's not like 3/4th's of casual games is made for smartphones and strongly utilize touchscreens. 

As far as motion controls go, The WiiU Gamepad has accelerometers, gyros and whatnot plus the WiiU is compatible with WiiMotes so...


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Jul 3, 2013)

SolidSnake95 said:


> The only reason Wii sold well was because it was cheap, easy to hack and Zelda/SSB/Mario wheeled in the dough. Other than that, Wii would have lost it were it not for those 3 things.


Nope, the reason the Wii sold well was the Wiimote (and the price of course). At the time, motion-controls were new and innovative. They haven't been used in a serious manner in videogames before and it really had a "cool factor" to it. Even before the Wii launched, everyone wanted to try out the system.

Part of the genius of the Wii was that the barrier to the casual market were broken thanks to the simple control-scheme. Instead of having to press all these buttons on some complicated controller to play golf, just swing the Wii Mote like a golf club! Or to play tennis, just swing it like a tennis racket. That shit was simple and easy to understand.

It even garnered a significant amount of interest from the hardcore in the beginning as well. I mean, using the Wii Mote as a gun in Metroid Prime 3 was pretty fucking cool at the time. As well as being able to actually swing a sword in real-life and have it work in-game (even if that wasn't realized properly until Red Steel 2).

With the Wii U, Nintendo forgot all about the casual market. Instead of the simplistic controls of the Wii, they introduced a controller that had a huge screen and all the traditional controls that scared casuals away in the very beginning. Even worse is that it had a very "been there, done that" feeling since the advent of tablets such as the iPad. If they had launched two years back before or around the time the iPad came out, the Wii U would likely be selling much much better right now.

So the casual market is gone, what about the hardcore? Nintendo hasn't done much there either. They still released a console that pales in comparison to the other next-gens in terms of specs. They get a lot of late ports that everyone has already played and they sell like shit because Nintendo hasn't done much to cultivate a hardcore base on their system. They've failed to properly advertise the benefits of the Wii U's controller with their own games, with Ubisoft even doing a better job than they are with ZombiU.

Right now, Nintendo seems completely lost. They say they want the hardcore but their actions show otherwise. They claim to be trying to reclaim the casual market but seem to forgot how. I'll give them until this holiday season before I put the final nail in the Wii U's coffin but things aren't looking bright right now.


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 3, 2013)

I understand that the gamepad has motion ability but it's just as much of a joke as the sixaxis was. It will only be good for racing games. I'm also aware that the Wii U supports the Wii Remote but most third party devs are using the game pad and pro conttrollers as an excuse to straight-port their 360 games and say F.U. to the remote. I really wanted a motion controlled version of Arkham City in the same vein as godfather blackhand edition and we got nothing but standard controlls on the gamepad. Sorry but Wii U feels like XBox with Mario and not a Nintendo console with Mario.


----------



## Rayder (Jul 3, 2013)

Nintendo's biggest issue is that most gamers that consider themselves hardcore call Nintendo "kiddie-systems" and won't bother with them.   Nintendo needs to shed the "kiddie-system" image.

While that image worked for them in the past, it's obviously not working that well anymore.  The kiddies grow up and want more mature gaming.  But Ninty just releases another Mario game instead.

That is what Nintendo's problem is these days.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jul 3, 2013)

Rayder said:


> Nintendo's biggest issue is that most gamers that consider themselves hardcore call Nintendo "kiddie-systems" and won't bother with them.   Nintendo needs to shed the "kiddie-system" image.
> 
> While that image worked for them in the past, it's obviously not working that well anymore.  The kiddies grow up and want more mature gaming.  But Ninty just releases another Mario game instead.
> 
> That is what Nintendo's problem is these days.


Also, it seems to me like parents don't coddle the "kiddie market" as much as they used to. twenty-some years ago, it was the biggest scandal in the world for kids to be playing Mortal Kombat with pixelated blood spurts and fatalities.

Meanwhile today, you have no idea how many times I hear parents talk about (either directly to me, or in the background at GameStop) buying or preordering games like Far Cry 3 or Resident Evil for their 9 year olds. Heck, sometimes they even ask the store employees if a particular M-rated game is "too bad," for their young kid before concluding that it's not that bad based on the information given to them. We live in a totally different era now where being an M-Rated game doesn't mean much now as far as what age category is going to play the game.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

Rayder said:


> Nintendo's biggest issue is that most gamers that consider themselves hardcore call Nintendo "kiddie-systems" and won't bother with them. Nintendo needs to shed the "kiddie-system" image.
> 
> While that image worked for them in the past, it's obviously not working that well anymore. The kiddies grow up and want more mature gaming. But Ninty just releases another Mario game instead.
> 
> That is what Nintendo's problem is these days.


 
But there are also too many mature games that are over the top with gore, people getting blow up, zombies or other so-called mature games.  Where do you draw the line?


----------



## emigre (Jul 3, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Meanwhile today, you have no idea how many times I hear parents talk about (either directly to me, or in the background at GameStop) buying or preordering games like Far Cry 3 or Resident Evil for their 9 year olds. Heck, sometimes they even ask the store employees if a particular M-rated game is "too bad," for their young kid before concluding that it's not that bad based on the information given to them. We live in a totally different era now where being an M-Rated game doesn't mean much now as fa as what age category is going to play the game.


 

Generally speaking, parents don't give a shit about classifications.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

emigre said:


> Generally speaking, parents don't give a shit about classifications.


 
Sad but true, people really don't care about that anymore.


----------



## calmwaters (Jul 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That's pretty understandable too - by the time the Gamecube and the XBox were released, everybody and their dog had a PlayStation 2. Developing for the system made sense, underpowered in comparison or not - it was still going to push those sales like a steamroller.
> 
> I forgot to mention that Reggie sticks to specs alone, not _the capabilities_. The PS2 supported DVD playback, the XBox supported DVD playback, the Gamecube did not support DVD playback. The XBox was Online-Ready out of the box, the PS2 was made Online-Ready via an adapter and later Ethernet was included in the Slim revision to support it out of the box, the Gamecube used a Network Adapter and only ever had four games that even _supported_ Online. One of those consoles sold the least units - _hmmm, which one?_
> 
> Raw numbers alone don't make up for the entirety of the console's real-life performance - it's what the console can _actually do_ that interests the End User. Effectively both the PS2 and the XBox could be used as home entertainment centers as well as consoles, and that was a _big deal_ at the time of their release - the Gamecube? Not so much.


 
End users should be interested in playing games; that is what the system is for. The Internet can increase the amount of games you can get. But this wasn't as important as it is today. It sounds like the XBox influenced online gaming since the Playstation and the N64 didn't have internet access. Hmmm... we also know that one of these systems had pretty bad third-party support.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 3, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> That mofo can cite the PS2 all day long but his excuse is a crummy one. The PS2 was also a good example of "how not to kill off your current console while releasing a new one" but hey... Nintendo loves murdering their last console in favor of the new one. Nintendo's issue in regards to me is that they decided to take six years of blue ocean progress and toss it out the fucking window. I like casual gaming. I like MOTION gaming. Instead of pushing forward and having developers find creative ways to use motion gaming, they chickened out and with with a traditional play style with a added touch screen. Are you shitting me???



You may have a point somewhere in the there but looking back on the last few years of the wii and it was dead on its feet for most of that.



the_randomizer said:


> Sad but true, people really don't care about that anymore.


Did they ever? I should probably stop here as I have serious issues with censorship and we do not get to off on that tangent again.

Also zombies as something so horribly mindblowing that the little ones can not see them?


----------



## Mantis41 (Jul 3, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> In terms of bare specs, it was at the bottom, except for maybe the Dreamcast. Believing what just about everybody else believes doesn't make you a dick.


 
Even so. I don't think there was much in it. This was more like the comparison between the 360 and PS3 with each platform having it's own highs and lows. It was nothing like the performance chasm between the Wii and PS360. The same performance chasm looks to continue into the next generation. The Wii hit at a perfect time in the market and flourished. The WiiU does not have this advantage. I think the statement processing power doesn't matter is flawed.


----------



## SolidSnake95 (Jul 3, 2013)

soulx said:


> Nope, the reason the Wii sold well was the Wiimote (and the price of course). At the time, motion-controls were new and innovative. They haven't been used in a serious manner in videogames before and it really had a "cool factor" to it. Even before the Wii launched, everyone wanted to try out the system.
> 
> Part of the genius of the Wii was that the barrier to the casual market were broken thanks to the simple control-scheme. Instead of having to press all these buttons on some complicated controller to play golf, just swing the Wii Mote like a golf club! Or to play tennis, just swing it like a tennis racket. That shit was simple and easy to understand.
> 
> ...


 
The motion controls weren't my reason for getting a Wii. My main reason was to play Zelda and hack it to run emulators.

If motion controls were its big sells point, then we see how much interest people lost in it as time went on, year after year sales decreased for that system. I guess it turns out that motion controls weren't all that big of  a deal after all. Because they sure as hell weren't for me, most of the time I wished they had made a simplistic controller.

But I agree with the things you said about WiiU.



emigre said:


> Generally speaking, parents don't give a shit about classifications.


 
They kind of do. You also have parents that are disgusted at the fact that there is a game store will you just buy and sell games. My mom being a perfect example of that type.

Most of the time you see a kid plead and beg for a particular game because everyone else is playing it and he doesn't want to be left out.

Maybe that's what Nintendo outa do. Fuck Mario. Create something totally brand new that will draw in gamers from other perspectives, hype a new badass 'neverbeforeseen' game and get kids whining to mom and dad to get it. Hence this may boost sales for christmas time.

People are tired of Mario, Zelda and Sonic. Do something new Nintendo. And start with the games first.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Jul 3, 2013)

SolidSnake95 said:


> The motion controls weren't my reason for getting a Wii. My main reason was to play Zelda and hack it to run emulators.
> 
> If motion controls were its big sells point, then we see how much interest people lost in it as time went on, year after year sales decreased for that system. I guess it turns out that motion controls weren't all that big of a deal after all. Because they sure as hell weren't for me, most of the time I wished they had made a simplistic controller.
> 
> But I agree with the things you said about WiiU.


If Nintendo consistently made games for the Wii after 2010, the Wii would probably still be selling decently right now. The reason it died out was because they flat out abandoned the platform. Third-parties definitely weren't making games and Nintendo stopped so there was nothing to play on the system. And sales died down accordingly.

_Thankfully_, the time they spent not making Wii games were spent getting a headstart so that they could give us_ all_ those fabulous Wii U games that were there at launch. >.>


----------



## Clarky (Jul 3, 2013)

SolidSnake95 said:


> I wished they had made a simplistic controller.


 Wish granted

http://www.amazon.com/Wii-Classic-Controller-Pro-Black-Nintendo/dp/B002TLTBN0


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> *End users should be interested in playing games; that is what the system is for.* The Internet can increase the amount of games you can get. But this wasn't as important as it is today. It sounds like the XBox influenced online gaming since the Playstation and the N64 didn't have internet access. Hmmm... we also know that one of these systems had pretty bad third-party support.


 
XBox Live as a service re-defined what it means to play Multiplayer games - it's introduction changed how console games are made and played and to this day makes the XBox, a hardly successful system iconic.

Internet was _a big deal_ because it was an empty field - anyone could contribute anything and that point and it was important to play this game if you were a major league player like Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft.

As for the games being the one solitary thing gamers should be interested in, this isn't the 1980'ties anymore, a console is more than just a box that plays games, it has to be a center of entertainment, it has to give your living room meaning and the more it does the better, _with focus towards gaming_. If a console has a BluRay-compatible drive, why _wouldn't_ it play BluRay discs? If it has access to the internet, why _wouldn't _it have online features like a browser or streaming support? There are the things those systems can do and by adding features like this, you give the user more variety, you give more incentive to keeping that box next to the TV because it makes your life _better_, or at the very least more comfortable.



soulx said:


> If Nintendo consistently made games for the Wii after 2010, the Wii would probably still be selling decently right now. The reason it died out was because they flat out abandoned the platform. Third-parties definitely weren't making games and Nintendo stopped so there was nothing to play on the system. And sales died down accordingly.
> 
> _Thankfully_, the time they spent not making Wii games were spent getting a headstart so that they could give us_ all_ those fabulous Wii U games that were there at launch. >.>


You can only take your system so far with first-party titles alone. Once the third-parties stopped supporting the system, the game draught began and even if Nintendo would want to support the system, there's only so many games they could potentially release for it on a yearly basis. The system was dying because the interest died down - it had an amazing run though.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> You may have a point somewhere in the there but looking back on the last few years of the wii and it was dead on its feet for most of that.
> 
> 
> Did they ever? I should probably stop here as I have serious issues with censorship and we do not get to off on that tangent again.
> ...


 
I don't like it when things are unnecessarily censored, either, but I too will not elaborate. As for kids not being around zombie-related media, not really, zombies just overrated IMHO 



Mantis41 said:


> Even so. I don't think there was much in it. This was more like the comparison between the 360 and PS3 with each platform having it's own highs and lows. It was nothing like the performance chasm between the Wii and PS360. The same performance chasm looks to continue into the next generation. The Wii hit at a perfect time in the market and flourished. The WiiU does not have this advantage. *I think the statement processing power doesn't matter is flawed*.


 
And perhaps it is to an extent. Yes, processing power is important, but it's not the sole determining factor for what makes a CPU as good as it is. You can have two CPUs; one from 2008 with two cores at 2.4 GHz and another from 2013 with two cores at 2.0 GHz and still have the latter perform more efficiently than the older one. How? Many factors come in to play, architecture, whether or not it's an OoE (Out-of-order Execution), has GPGPU, etc.

A CPU with a higher clock rate doesn't mean it's going to perform faster than a CPU with a lower clock rate, and the Gamecube vs Xbox was a good example. Sure, the Xbox had a higher clock rate, but the Gamecube used the IBM PPC architecture which put it on par with the Xbox's CPU in terms of raw power irrespective of the 250 or so MHz difference. Any computer science major will tell you that. The Wii U being the lowest in clock rate doesn't mean it's doomed to fail. The whole mentality of "The Wii U is the weakest of the three and therefore doesn't have a chance in hell of getting good games" is a load of bulls**t and needs to stop.

Architecture > raw clock speed


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2013)

For those who don't know, CPU frequency is _not_ a measure of processing power - it's a measure of the number of cycles a CPU performs per second. Without knowing how many calculations it can perform per-cycle, frequency is meaningless.

To quote my own post from a long, long time ago, carrying a bucket with 20 apples _(Instructions) _10 times across the room per second _(10Hz)_ ultimately _"processing"_ 200 apples _(20*10=200)_ is _better_ than carrying a bucket of 5 apples _(Instructions)_ 20 times across the room _(20Hz) _thus _"processing"_ 100 apples _(5*20=100)_. _Oh gee, but 20Hz is two times as much as 10Hz!_ Except _"so what"_ if the performance is lower?


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> For those who don't know, CPU frequency is _not_ a measure of processing power - it's a measure of the number of cycles a CPU performs per second. Without knowing how many calculations it can perform per-cycle, frequency is meaningless. To quote my own post from a long, long time ago, carrying a bucket with 20 apples _(Instructions) _10 times across the room per second _(10Hz)_ ultimately _"processing"_ 200 apples _(20*10=200)_ is _better_ than carrying a bucket of 5 apples _(Instructions)_ 20 times across the room _(20Hz) _thus _"processing"_ 100 apples _(5*20=100)_. _Oh gee, but 20Hz is two times as much as 10Hz!_ Except _"so what"_ if the performance is lower?


 
I'm glad someone actually bothers to show factual information  I like that analogy very well, I should quote you on it more often .


----------



## VMM (Jul 3, 2013)

clarky said:


> Wish granted
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Wii-Classic-Controller-Pro-Black-Nintendo/dp/B002TLTBN0


 

Of course e meant the default controller.

By the way, I wonder why Nintendo made the Classic Controller Pro without bluetooth.
It would also be really nice if they supported GC games with Classic Controller Pro.
There are so many good opportunities that Nintendo simply avoid, what harm would be in doing those things?
I think gamers would feel pleased to have that.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

VMM said:


> Of course e meant the default controller.
> 
> By the way, I wonder why Nintendo made the Classic Controller Pro without bluetooth.
> It would also be really nice if they supported GC games with Classic Controller Pro.
> ...


 
That would be nice if it was Bluetooth, as I wouldn't have to get up at all and plug it in/unplug it. Oh well.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jul 3, 2013)

VMM said:


> Of course e meant the default controller.
> 
> By the way, I wonder why Nintendo made the Classic Controller Pro without bluetooth.
> It would also be really nice if they supported GC games with Classic Controller Pro.
> ...


Wait, it's not Bluetooth? I thought it used the same wireless technology as the wiimote?


----------



## VMM (Jul 3, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Wait, it's not Bluetooth? I thought it used the same wireless technology as the wiimote?


 

No, it doesn't, you have to connect it to the Wiimote in order to play it wireless.


----------



## SolidSnake95 (Jul 3, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Wait, it's not Bluetooth? I thought it used the same wireless technology as the wiimote?


 
Wiimote isn't bluetooth...


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

VMM said:


> No, it doesn't, you have to connect it to the Wiimote in order to play it wireless.


 
Interesting, didn't know that actually as I don't have one, but I might get one since it looks pretty comfortable.



SolidSnake95 said:


> Wiimote isn't bluetooth...


 
Wha? Well it ain't infrared, otherwise it would be to be directly in front of the sensor bar. If it's not Bluetooth, I guess people just magically sync them to PCs then without any Bluetooth adapters. First paragraph, the Wiimote is Bluetooth. Get your facts straight, please.

http://wiibrew.org/wiki/Wiimote
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Bluetooth/Bluetooth-RF-Silicon-and-Software-Solutions/BCM2042


----------



## VMM (Jul 3, 2013)

SolidSnake95 said:


> Wiimote isn't bluetooth...


 

Wiimote is bluetooth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_Remote

Just check the Connectivity.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2013)

SolidSnake95 said:


> Wiimote isn't bluetooth...


 
Yep. The WiiMote is indeed using Bluetooth - with the right drivers, you can even connect it to a PC.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Yep. The WiiMote is indeed using Bluetooth - with the right drivers, you can even connect it to a PC.


 
But, but SolidSnake95 said it isn't Bluetooth, so it must use an RF signal or infrared, right??


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jul 3, 2013)

VMM said:


> No, it doesn't, you have to connect it to the Wiimote in order to play it wireless.


Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about the Wii U Pro Controller, not the classic controller for the original Wii.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 3, 2013)

I don't think comparing the PS2 to the Wii U in terms of power is entirely fair because I think there will be a much larger gap between the PS4/Xbox one and the Wii U.

Plus the game has changed. The Wii U is certainly not the Wii. It's not a reliable comparison. The Wii came out with an entirely original idea (yes adapted from older attempts from competitors but welcome to innovation) that the Wii U hasn't recaptured. Plus like in terms of competition they're all entirely different, the PS2, Wii, and Wii U.

Case in point is history is not a reliable way to predict the future in this circumstance.


----------



## VMM (Jul 3, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about the Wii U Pro Controller, not the classic controller for the original Wii.


 

WiiU Pro Controller seems perfect, although it's pretty much a copy of X360 controller.

I was talking about classic controller pro and it's defects.
It would be awesome if it was wireless and used bluetooth, but Nintendo, dunno why,
decided using it wired, and that you'd have to connect it to Wiimote in order to play it wireless.

Another missed opportunity was using classic controller pro for Gamecube games,
it could have worked perfectly, and would be nice considering finding good new gamecube controllers is getting harder these days.

Talking about controllers and missed opportunities,
another one is using WiiU Pro Controller for Wii games that used Classic Controller Pro or Gamecube controllers.

Everybody would like these things, and they don't seem to be that hard to be done,
so I wonder if it's Nintendo been lazy, stubborn or something else.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jul 3, 2013)

VMM said:


> WiiU Pro Controller seems perfect, although it's pretty much a copy of X360 controller.
> 
> I was talking about classic controller pro and it's defects.
> It would be awesome if it was wireless and used bluetooth, but Nintendo, dunno why,
> ...


The Wii classic controller pro wouldn't have worked for GameCube games due to a lack of analog triggers, plus there's certainly some limitations in GameCube mode that prevent their use (remember, GameCube mode uses true hardware compatibility, not partial emulation like the 360 and launch PS3). And Bluetooth was probably foregone in favor of keeping the controller cheaper. Notice that the nunchuck and classic controller only cost $20 USD each, while the wiimote is $40 USD. Why add extra features that would make the peripheral twice as much, when those same features can be had by plugging it in to a more expensive peripheral every Wii owner already has?

That's how I see it, anyway.


----------



## VMM (Jul 3, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> The Wii classic controller pro wouldn't have worked for GameCube games due to a lack of analog triggers, plus there's poetically some limitations in GameCube mode that prevent their use.


 
Simulating analog input with digital input doesn't seem that much troublesome, but there is probably more to that,
I'm lay in the terms of Wii and GC hardwares, maybe someone with better knowledge about these areas could give me a light.



xwatchmanx said:


> And Bluetooth was probably foregone in favor of keeping the controller cheaper.


 
Agreed, but there was already the classic controller that way.
They could add bluetooth as one of the "pro" features in the classic controller pro.
I wouldn't mind paying more for a better and more complete controller,
for those who mind, they could still get the classic controller.



xwatchmanx said:


> Notice that the nunchuck and classic controller only cost $20 USD each, while the wiimote is $40 USD. Why add extra features that would make the peripheral twice as much, when those same features can be had by plugging it in to a more expensive peripheral every Wii owner already has?


 
Because it would make the controller more compact and trully wireless.
It's really a mess and unconfortable to play with the wiimote hanging around your classic controller.
Although wiimote is the part that uses the bluetooth, it feel kinda useless since you do not use a single button of it.


----------



## Mantis41 (Jul 3, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> I don't like it when things are unnecessarily censored, either, but I too will not elaborate. As for kids not being around zombie-related media, not really, zombies just overrated IMHO
> 
> And perhaps it is to an extent. Yes, processing power is important, but it's not the sole determining factor for what makes a CPU as good as it is. You can have two CPUs; one from 2008 with two cores at 2.4 GHz and another from 2013 with two cores at 2.0 GHz and still have the latter perform more efficiently than the older one. How? Many factors come in to play, architecture, whether or not it's an OoE (Out-of-order Execution), has GPGPU, etc.
> 
> ...


 
If power gap wasn't so wide I would agree. I guess time will tell.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 3, 2013)

Mantis41 said:


> If power gap wasn't so wide I would agree. I guess time will tell.


 

To quote Foxi4 from post 89

"For those who don't know, CPU frequency is _not_ a measure of processing power - it's a measure of the number of cycles a CPU performs per second. Without knowing how many calculations it can perform per-cycle, frequency is meaningless.

To quote my own post from a long, long time ago, carrying a bucket with 20 apples _(Instructions) _10 times across the room per second _(10Hz)_ ultimately _"processing"_ 200 apples _(20*10=200)_ is _better_ than carrying a bucket of 5 apples _(Instructions)_ 20 times across the room _(20Hz) _thus _"processing"_ 100 apples _(5*20=100)_. _Oh gee, but 20Hz is two times as much as 10Hz!_ Except _"so what"_ if the performance is lower? "

Raw power isn't everything. More MHz is irrelevant. Stop using power as an indicator on whether or not a console is successful. I'd love to hear your reason for disagreement after all that has been said about this power-means-everything-bulls**t.  People need to stop bitching and moaning about lack of power, focus on the games and move on. If anyone gets so bloody upset over a lack of power, or too much power, they really need to do what people call "going outside" once in a while.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 3, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Raw power isn't everything. More MHz is irrelevant. Stop using power as an indicator on whether or not a console is successful. I'd love to hear your reason for disagreement after all that has been said about this power-means-everything-bulls**t. People need to stop bitching and moaning about lack of power, focus on the games and move on. If anyone gets so bloody upset over a lack of power, or too much power, they really need to do what people call "going outside" once in a while.


 
You're twisting my words a little bit - a huge gap in overall performance _is_ an issue. Somewhere down the line the WiiU train will run out of steam and this'll cause a draught as far as multiplatform games are concerned, and WiiU owners or people planning to get one have to realize that.

It's going to be the same deal as with the Wii - the WiiU will offer a unique experience and it's this the developers have to capitalize on, but so far they're tripping over their own feet.

MHz aren't a measure of raw performance - that's what I said. I never said that raw performance is irrelevant.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 3, 2013)

Everyone worried about the Wii-U sales is worried about the wrong thing. I would bet that the Wii-U at the end of this generation will be the top selling console beating out the Xbox One and the PS4. 

Why would I say such a thing? Well going by past statistics it is nearly a sure thing... going back all the way to the Atari 2600 it has nearly always been the weakest console that sold the most. (The TG-16 being the one exception that I can think of off hand.) 

If specs where to decide sales, the Vita would be cleaning the 3DS's clock right now, and yet the 3DS outsells the Vita by nearly 10 to 1. It's so lopsided it's not even funny. 

So continue on with the spec debate it is entertaining to say the least.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 4, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Everyone worried about the Wii-U sales is worried about the wrong thing. I would bet that the Wii-U at the end of this generation will be the top selling console beating out the Xbox One and the PS4.
> 
> Why would I say such a thing? Well going by past statistics it is nearly a sure thing... going back all the way to the Atari 2600 it has nearly always been the weakest console that sold the most. (The TG-16 being the one exception that I can think of off hand.)
> 
> ...


 
Except the Atari 2600, just like the PS2 and the Wii had something the WiiU doesn't have - games. Not much coming up, so the WiiU is in the exact same situation the PSVita's in - in the so-called _"game draught"_.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Except the Atari 2600, just like the PS2 and the Wii had something the WiiU doesn't have - games. Not much coming up, so the WiiU is in the exact same situation the PSVita's in - in the so-called _"game draught"_.


 

I don't know about being in the same boat as the Vita, having a big publisher making games for your system like Nintendo kinda helps that out. I mean on the Vita you know some good games are going to come out, you just don't really know when... On the Wii-U you have a schedule of incoming hits like Mario Kart, Mario this, Mario that, Zelda, you might not like the games but they do sell millions of copies so they do seem popular.

Also the Vita is going to have even more of a drought as Sony has to now focus on getting games for the PS4... 

I still think Sony should have stayed focused on the home console market, they don't have enough resources to fight on two fronts. 

Edit: Another difference between the Vita and the Wii-U, the price.. The Vita is the most expensive of the two current gen handhelds. The Wii-U is going to be cheaper than the next gen from MS and Sony. It might not be a huge difference in price but the Vita isn't that much more than the 3DS.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 4, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> I don't know about being in the same boat as the WiiU, having a big publisher making games for your system like Nintendo kinda helps that out. I mean on the Vita you know some good games are going to come out, you just don't really know when... On the Wii-U you have a schedule of incoming hits like Mario Kart, Mario this, Mario that, Zelda, you might not like the games but they do sell millions of copies so they do seem popular.
> 
> Also the Vita is going to have even more of a drought as Sony has to now focus on getting games for the PS4...
> 
> ...


_"I don't know about being in the same boat as the Vita, having a big publisher making games for your system like Sony Computer Entertainment kinda helps that out. I mean on the WiiU you know some good games are going to come out, you just don't really know when... On the PSVita you have a schedule of incoming hits like KillZone: Mercenary, Valhalla Knights 3, Phantasy Star Online 2, Ys: Memories of Celecta, you might not like the games but they do sell millions of copies so they do seem popular._

_Also the WiiU is going to have even more of a drought as Nintendo has to now focus on getting their shit together..._

_I still think Nintendo should have stayed focused on the handheld console market, they don't have enough resources to fight on two fronts._

_Edit: Another similarity between the Vita and the WiiU, the price.. The Vita is the most expensive of the two current gen handhelds. The WiiU is more expensive than the current gen MS and Sony systems while it's getting the exact same games (apart from the exclusives, but every console has those so it's hardly an excuse). It might not be a huge similarity in price but the WiiU isn't that much less than the PS4."_

_Well, look at that! Sounds like the same boat to me! _


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 4, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Everyone worried about the Wii-U sales is worried about the wrong thing. I would bet that the Wii-U at the end of this generation will be the top selling console beating out the Xbox One and the PS4.
> 
> Why would I say such a thing? Well going by past statistics it is nearly a sure thing... going back all the way to the Atari 2600 it has nearly always been the weakest console that sold the most. (The TG-16 being the one exception that I can think of off hand.)
> 
> ...


Your logic is as flawed as Reggie's in making your assessment of what garners success where game consoles are concerned. We've already established it's the games that matter. For Nintendo, that's always a tough front because third parties haven't loved them for about two decades. Ever since the days of the N64, Nintendo has had one hell of a time getting a range of quality games both first and third party on their systems. If I'm not mistaken, the N64 was slightly screwed due to its cart's memory limitations, causing developers to primarily switch to the PS1 because yay disc based media with its much larger memory capacity.

Apparently this followed Nintendo, and they have simply never made a serious effort to get the third parties back on their side because they were so confident in their first party line up.

Edit: That is why the PS1 was successful despite being weaker. The PS2 was successful despite being weaker because of having such great, immediate support that followed the system. The weakness of the console is nothing more than a convenient trend. It's nothing to base a prediction off of.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 4, 2013)

The Vita and the Wii U are apples and oranges, stop making comparisons. The handheld market and the console market are pretty different ballgames.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> _"I don't know about being in the same boat as the Vita, having a big publisher making games for your system like Sony Computer Entertainment kinda helps that out. I mean on the WiiU you know some good games are going to come out, you just don't really know when... On the PSVita you have a schedule of incoming hits like KillZone: Mercenary, Valhalla Knights 3, Phantasy Star Online 2, Ys: Memories of Celecta, you might not like the games but they do sell millions of copies so they do seem popular._
> 
> _Also the WiiU is going to have even more of a drought as Nintendo has to now focus on getting their shit together..._
> 
> ...


 

Well when you run out of steam boy do you run out of steam. 

I give it an 9 out 10. lol


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 4, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Well when you run out of steam boy do you run out of steam.
> 
> I give it an 9 out 10. lol


 
Will improve until it's 10/10 and a Bad Ass Seal of Approval. 

Seriously though, it's a shame to see those two systems doing poorly since they're both unique in their own way and they both bring something new to the field. The PSVita has unparalleled, unmatched, fantastic controls, a gorgeous screen and great Online capabilities that make it the dream-come-true portable _"core gaming"_ system while still having a touchscreen for all those casual titles. The WiiU introduced the _"dual screen-style"_ control model to the home consoles with the touchscreen while retaining the well-known motion controls of the Wii via WiiMote compatibility as well as gyros in the gamepad itself and improves upon the Wii's control scheme by adding a typically _"core"_ layout to the Gamepad. They're both special in their own way and I'd love to see developers taking advantage of their strong points because both have quite a bit to offer.




Guild McCommunist said:


> The Vita and the Wii U are apples and oranges, stop making comparisons. The handheld market and the console market are pretty different ballgames.


That is very true, I was merely drawing a connection since their sales and library situation is glaringly similar.


----------



## xist (Jul 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That is very true, I was merely drawing a connection since their sales and library situation is glaringly similar.


 
Except that Sony appear to be following the PSP route to success and totally ignoring it in favour of their home consoles, whilst Nintendo don't even have to think about the 3DS for it to succeed and _appear_ to be at least trying to solve the Wii U problem.

The Wii U is floundering because developers don't know what to do with it's unique features and have other options on the horizon. The Vita is failing because Sony are terrible parents and developers are a little afraid to give sweets to the ginger kid (Vita).


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 4, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> Your logic is as flawed as Reggie's in making your assessment of what garners success where game consoles are concerned. We've already established it's the games that matter. For Nintendo, that's always a tough front because third parties haven't loved them for about two decades. Ever since the days of the N64, Nintendo has had one hell of a time getting a range of quality games both first and third party on their systems.


 
Not sure where you get this information from.... but Nintendo has never had any problem getting quality first party software. Every generation Nintendo's first party software is considered by many to be simply fantastic. Pick favorite your review site load up a top 100 list of games and you will see Nintendo's first party software consistently on that list from any generation of consoles you choose. That's not logic or an opinion. 

You could be right about the 3rd parties but completely wrong about the first party thing.



Nathan Drake said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the N64 was slightly screwed due to its cart's memory limitations, causing developers to primarily switch to the PS1 because yay disc based media with its much larger memory capacity.
> 
> Apparently this followed Nintendo, and they have simply never made a serious effort to get the third parties back on their side because they were so confident in their first party line up.
> 
> Edit: That is why the PS1 was successful despite being weaker. The PS2 was successful despite being weaker because of having such great, immediate support that followed the system. The weakness of the console is nothing more than a convenient trend. It's nothing to base a prediction off of.


 

Also the PS1 was much cheaper to make games for, the price for a cart VS the price for a CD? I will let you think about that one for a minute. Then clue you in to how many publishers said "Yeah.... CD's umm pennies here or carts at how many dollars per cart did Nintendo quote us?"  I can guarantee the decision to go with a complete unknown in the video game industry took about 2 seconds to make given the economics. Put simply Sony offered a MUCH better deal.

So capacity really had nothing to do with the equation, sure it was nice to have but beyond having some crap FMV or streamed music 99% of the PS1 library barely scratched the capacity. It was about money pure and simple.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 4, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> So capacity really had nothing to do with the equation, sure it was nice to have but beyond having some crap FMV or streamed music 99% of the PS1 library barely scratched the capacity. It was about money pure and simple.


 
Crap or not, the cutscenes and Audio CD-quality music were selling points for the PlayStation - you couldn't replicate either on the Nintendo 64, so don't say it was irrelevant because that's just not true. Moreover, developers did indeed _"scratch"_ the very limits of the cartridge's capacity, hence highly compressed textures _(which were low resolution due to a different design flaw altogether, but still)_.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 4, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Not sure where you get this information from.... but Nintendo has never had any problem getting quality first party software. Every generation Nintendo's first party software is considered by many to be simply fantastic. Pick favorite your review site load up a top 100 list of games and you will see Nintendo's first party software consistently on that list from any generation of consoles you choose. That's not logic or an opinion.
> 
> You could be right about the 3rd parties but completely wrong about the first party thing.


I never said the first party games weren't good. That's putting words in my mouth.


Psionic Roshambo said:


> Also the PS1 was much cheaper to make games for, the price for a cart VS the price for a CD? I will let you think about that one for a minute. Then clue you in to how many publishers said "Yeah.... CD's umm pennies here or carts at how many dollars per cart did Nintendo quote us?" I can guarantee the decision to go with a complete unknown in the video game industry took about 2 seconds to make given the economics. Put simply Sony offered a MUCH better deal.
> 
> So capacity really had nothing to do with the equation, sure it was nice to have but beyond having some crap FMV or streamed music 99% of the PS1 library barely scratched the capacity. It was about money pure and simple.


I assure you, the price of the physical production of the game usually matters little as long as it will sell for 50000% more than production costs. If it costs $0.56 to make one cart versus $0.08 (totally hypothetical numbers) to print out a disc, it ultimately makes little difference when you're selling the game for $50+. What matters is that the carts were very limited in their capabilities due to memory restrictions. N64 carts were limited to a total of 64MB versus the PS1's 650+MB. Developers lost the ability to work with these limitations while doing what they wanted to do, such as including cut scenes and making large games in general, since PS1 games could be multi-disc as well. Because of this, big third parties moved to the PS1, and with the increased success of the PS1, other third parties that it would have made little difference for either way followed suit.

You are exceptionally far off track in assessing why third parties jumped ship with the N64.


----------



## emigre (Jul 4, 2013)

You guys are sorta forgetting that Nintendo had really pissed off third parties as well. Shitty limitations and high lecensing fees went a long way in third parties happily shifting resources to supporting the Playstation. The regular game droughts of the N64 really illustrates how few third parties wanted to support the system.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 4, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> I assure you, the price of the physical production of the game usually matters little as long as it will sell for 50000% more than production costs. If it costs $0.56 to make one cart versus $0.08 (totally hypothetical numbers) to print out a disc, it ultimately makes little difference when you're selling the game for $50+. What matters is that the carts were very limited in their capabilities due to memory restrictions. N64 carts were limited to a total of 64MB versus the PS1's 650+MB. Developers lost the ability to work with these limitations while doing what they wanted to do, such as including cut scenes and making large games in general, since PS1 games could be multi-disc as well. Because of this, big third parties moved to the PS1, and with the increased success of the PS1, other third parties that it would have made little difference for either way followed suit.
> 
> You are exceptionally far off track in assessing why third parties jumped ship with the N64.


 
64MB carts for the N64 back then where not .56 cents to make.... rotflmao not even close. Try closer to 20$ a pop, a cost that the publishers had to pay. So yeah making the same game on a CD for pennies was the way to go. 

But since you think I am so far off the mark with what I am saying perhaps you will take the word of a developer? 

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Luis...he_Origins_and_Fate_of_the_60_Retail_Copy.php

"High cartridge prices made Nintendo 64 games expensive, costing upwards of $80 (in 1996 dollars) versus $40 or $50 for PlayStation. Publishers were able to sell games for less because manufacturing costs for games on CD-ROM were much lower than making cartridge copies. Lower software pricing was one of the reasons why Sony dominated the 5th generation of consoles, leaving both Nintendo and Sega eating dust." 

So the difference between producing a cart for the N64 and a CD on the PS1 was a little more than 50 cents..... rotflmao


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jul 4, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> I never said the first party games weren't good. That's putting words in my mouth.
> 
> I assure you, the price of the physical production of the game usually matters little as long as it will sell for 50000% more than production costs. If it costs $0.56 to make one cart versus $0.08 (totally hypothetical numbers) to print out a disc, it ultimately makes little difference when you're selling the game for $50+. What matters is that the carts were very limited in their capabilities due to memory restrictions. N64 carts were limited to a total of 64MB versus the PS1's 650+MB. Developers lost the ability to work with these limitations while doing what they wanted to do, such as including cut scenes and making large games in general, since PS1 games could be multi-disc as well. Because of this, big third parties moved to the PS1, and with the increased success of the PS1, other third parties that it would have made little difference for either way followed suit.
> 
> You are exceptionally far off track in assessing why third parties jumped ship with the N64.


A minor correction: don't get the "64" in N64 confused with how many megabytes of storage a cartridge had. It was a 64 bit system, but the largest game (I believe) was actually 512MB


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 4, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> A minor correction: don't get the "64" in N64 confused with how many megabytes of storage a cartridge had. It was a 64 bit system, but the largest game (I believe) was actually 512MB


Close. The highest capacity was 512Mb/64MB.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jul 4, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> Close. The highest capacity was 512Mb/64MB.


Um, what?

I think I'm going to shut up... clearly this conversation has gone beyond my technical prowess.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 4, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> Um, what?
> 
> I think I'm going to shut up... clearly this conversation has gone beyond my technical prowess.


There's a difference between Mb and MB. Mb refers to megabits, while MB refers to Megabytes. To keep it simple, 1Mb is equal to approximately 125KB. So something with a capacity of 512Mb would be broken down this way:
512Mb * 125KB = 64,000KB which roughly translates to 64MB. Obviously the exact calculations are a touch more precise, but that's an easy way to see it.

With that in mind, Nintendo could at max produce a 512Mb cart, otherwise seen as 64MB.

For reference, game dumps, at least for the likes of the DS, tend to be measured in Mb on the release notes. Just check out any DS release and you'll see that.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Jul 4, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> There's a difference between Mb and MB. Mb refers to megabits, while MB refers to Megabytes. To keep it simple, 1Mb is equal to approximately 125KB. So something with a capacity of 512Mb would be broken down this way:
> 512Mb * 125KB = 64,000KB which roughly translates to 64MB. Obviously the exact calculations are a touch more precise, but that's an easy way to see it.
> 
> With that in mind, Nintendo could at max produce a 512Mb cart, otherwise seen as 64MB.
> ...


Alright, I think I understand now. Thanks.


----------



## RedCoreZero (Jul 4, 2013)

I kinda agree, but I don't.2006 Wii released, smartphones and tablets didn't exist or wasn't popular.Casual gamers bought Wii because it was easy to use and gimmicky.The games do matter though, without it, they won't sell, and we know what happens when things don't sell.All of a sudden, third party companies don't want to make it because it's, 'weak'.No, companies don't want to put their games on the Wii U because it's not selling well.

Hardware issues, I don't buy that shit, if it were selling well they would get that shit on there!I can see them porting games for PS3 and 360.Like how they forced ports on the Wii.They will be like:







herp derp.


----------



## Mantis41 (Jul 4, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> To quote Foxi4 from post 89
> Raw power isn't everything. More MHz is irrelevant. Stop using power as an indicator on whether or not a console is successful. I'd love to hear your reason for disagreement after all that has been said about this power-means-everything-bulls**t. People need to stop bitching and moaning about lack of power, focus on the games and move on. If anyone gets so bloody upset over a lack of power, or too much power, they really need to do what people call "going outside" once in a while.


 
I was thinking more of bandwidth than MHZ.
The WiiU has 1GB of RAM available @ around 25GB/s that can be boosted significantly by utilising 32MB of EDRAM.
The PS4 has 7GB or RAM available @ around 176GB/s that can be boosted significantly by utilising a small amount of EDRAM

On paper the differences in available bandwidth are massive.
Bandwidth is used for everything from increase polys, increased colour pallet, large textures, more effects, increased AA, tracking more objects and has a heavy relationship to frame rate. If you have less bandwidth available sacrifices will have to be made.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 4, 2013)

Mantis41 said:


> I was thinking more of bandwidth than MHZ.
> The WiiU has 2GB of RAM available @ around 20GB/s that can be boosted significantly by utilising 32MB of EDRAM.
> The PS4 has 8GB or RAM available @ around 176GB/s that can be boosted significantly by utilising a small amount of EDRAM
> 
> ...


 

I'm done here. There will never be an end to hardware discussions.

People are clearly slaughtering the console just because it's not as powerful as the competition, without even giving it a chance.


----------



## ggyo (Jul 4, 2013)

Correlation=/=causation.

Just because the weakest console of each generation has sold more hardware does not mean the key for success is weaker hardware. It's possible that more software was possible to develop because weaker hardware means less resources needed to be put into software.

And seeing as the Wii's hardware has sold dismally since 2008-2009, which was right when software stopped being released as frequently for the system, I think it's safe to say the console with the most and best software will always be the most successful.

It's appalling to think a person in the position that Reggie is in doesn't know that. It's almost unquestionable, so it makes me believe he's only saying this to favor media appeal.


----------



## xist (Jul 4, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> People are clearly slaughtering the console just because it's not as powerful as the competition, without even giving it a chance.


 
By people are you referring to potential third party developers? Because "people" in general aren't slaughtering the Wii U because it's not as powerful as the competition (most don't even consider it). What they do consider, and the reason the Wii U is getting "slaughtered" is because it's not very interesting and has a shallow range of games, coupled with a ludicrous price point.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 4, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm done here. There will never be an end to hardware discussions.


 
Of course not, since, you know, hardware is kind of important. Ignoring the issue isn't going to magically make it disappear.



the_randomizer said:


> People are clearly slaughtering the console just because it's not as powerful as the competition, without even giving it a chance.


 

If that's what you have to tell yourself, well, don't let me or the reality of the situation get in your way.


----------



## thewarhammer (Jul 4, 2013)

Mantis41 said:


> Even so. I don't think there was much in it. This was more like the comparison between the 360 and PS3 with each platform having it's own highs and lows. It was nothing like the performance chasm between the Wii and PS360. The same performance chasm looks to continue into the next generation. The Wii hit at a perfect time in the market and flourished. The WiiU does not have this advantage. I think the statement processing power doesn't matter is flawed.


 
...of course it wasn't something abysmal as Wii X PS3/360, but claiming that the difference was something like PS3 X 360 clearly says you didn't played some multiplat games. Some games like Just Cause on PS2 compared to it's XBOX counterpart just makes you feel "OMG". Or compare Halo 2 with any of the prettier PS2 games. It's not like Wii against PS3/360, but I have to say it's very close...


----------



## SolidSnake95 (Jul 4, 2013)

I think most people do care about hardware to be honest. For me its not a deciding factor, but to most it is. They want to take adventage of all that the system has to offer. A system that handles blu rays is going to obviously sell a lot better than a system that still uses DVD's.


----------



## Mantis41 (Jul 5, 2013)

thewarhammer said:


> ...of course it wasn't something abysmal as Wii X PS3/360, but claiming that the difference was something like PS3 X 360 clearly says you didn't played some multiplat games. Some games like Just Cause on PS2 compared to it's XBOX counterpart just makes you feel "OMG". Or compare Halo 2 with any of the prettier PS2 games. It's not like Wii against PS3/360, but I have to say it's very close...


 
You're probably right, I got on my high horse there.

Still, the difference between 1GB @25GB/s and 7GB @176GB/s is absolutely huge and with both consoles able to boost performance with the correct utilisation of EDRAM the poor WiiU does not stand much of a chance in the years to come. The only thing that will save the WiiU is games, games and more games or a massive difference in price.


----------



## naved.islam14 (Jul 5, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> End users should be interested in playing games; that is what the system is for. The Internet can increase the amount of games you can get. But this wasn't as important as it is today. It sounds like the XBox influenced online gaming since the Playstation and the N64 didn't have internet access. Hmmm... we also know that one of these systems had pretty bad third-party support.



Ever heard of multiplayer?


----------



## calmwaters (Jul 5, 2013)

naved.islam14 said:


> Ever heard of multiplayer?


 
Yeah; you had 2 to 4 friends come over to play with you. None of this internet connectivity was used back then. But the internet now lets you play with those friends as well as a whole slew of other ones. I guess you'll really like it if you love playing with other people. My internet gaming consists of a few Facebook games, in which I spend absolutely no real money for, and Mario Kart (once I finally got my Wii connected to the internet).


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 7, 2013)

ggyo said:


> Correlation=/=causation.
> 
> Just because the weakest console of each generation has sold more hardware does not mean the key for success is weaker hardware. It's possible that more software was possible to develop because weaker hardware means less resources needed to be put into software.


 

Correlation=/=causation

I love double edged swords....

"As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not imply that the resulting conclusion is false"

So while saying that weaker hardware sells better because of X, the logic behind the observation might be flawed but the conclusion at this point in time is almost inescapable.

Seriously Atari launched the 2600 in 1977... We have lots of data points since that time. In almost every single case the result is the same. Home or portable consoles....


----------



## Amber Lamps (Jul 7, 2013)

PS2 still is awesome.  But my take is the Wii U has rolled out better games than the other two competators are launching.  So I think this guy is correct.  But will it have a larger install base? Probably not.   Too many people are addicted to call of duty and other fpses which is sad.  Live on Nintendo even if I don't get a Wii U right away.  And even if most of their good games are rehashes of rehashes of rehashes.... still better than playing another variation of Quake on a console which is boring imho.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 7, 2013)

Amber Lamps said:


> PS2 still is awesome. But my take is the Wii U has rolled out better games than the other two competators are launching. So I think this guy is correct. But will it have a larger install base? Probably not. Too many people are addicted to call of duty and other fpses which is sad. Live on Nintendo even if I don't get a Wii U right away. And even if most of their good games are rehashes of rehashes of rehashes.... still better than playing another variation of Quake on a console which is boring imho.


 

110% agree about being tired of FPS games, been playing them on the PC since Doom. Not that I still don't enjoy a good one when it launches, I mean I will chew through the single player COD game in a couple of hours and never touch it again, but I will sit and play Borderlands for long periods of time.

I buy consoles to supplement my PC, if they don't offer something besides what I can get on my PC.... They feel like redundant wastes of money, two things I hate.

If the PS4 and Xbox One are going to be FPS boxes, I will just stick to my PC and the Wii-U.

This will be the first generation of consoles that I have not owned more than 1 of the systems and this goes all the way back to the 2600...

Holy crap I own a lot of consoles... damn my OCD!

I may pick up a PS4 near the middle or end of its life, depends on how Sony handles it.


----------

