Do you want a powerful (truly Next Gen) Wii U or a relatively underpowered Wii U with backwards compatibility ?
You can't have both.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Do you want a powerful (truly Next Gen) Wii U or a relatively underpowered Wii U with backwards compatibility ?
You can't have both.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Because it's easier to hack.Why make a console that is backwards compatible ?
Seems to me that it's a bad idea for the Wii U to be backwards compatible with Wii games.
I doubt Xbox1 and PS4 are backwards compatible.
Seems like it ties you to the past, restricting the future.
I agree with OP, there are no wii titles worth owning, thus no reason for the wiiu to have BC, but what's even more baffling is the lack of wiiu titles worth owning, thus no reason for the wiiu to exist.
(also osirisjem)Wii U's Backwards Compatibility made Nintendo unable to use a different CPU or GPU regardless of whether they wanted to or not - they needed to use something directly compatible in order to achieve fluid hardware-based support. The alternative would be using powerful PC-grade hardware capable of 1:1 emulation of the earlier system which would make the Wii U unreasonably expensive. Had it not used the aged PowerPC 7xx architecture, we would probably see a completely different system altogether.
Which is totally why they invested a great deal of money and time on refining PPC7xx by adding an ARM core for background OS functionality and SIMD which is poor/non-existant on standard PPC7xx, miniaturizing the chip and putting three cores in it. No, this is no coincidence. The research on this CPU line is on-going, they knew exactly what they were doing. They keep re-using the same IBM setup since the Gamecube days, this was a planned and deliberate design choice. You can't really expect anyone to believe that re-using the same architecture and a backwards-compatible GPU family was entirely accidental.(also osirisjem)Okay...I see what you guys are saying, but I think you've got things put upside down. I honestly don't believe nintendo started out with the idea that they should have backward compatibility (...)
No. Revisions of hardware are normal - companies release them on a regular basis.(also osirisjem)Oh, and I'd like to file the existence of the family wii and the wii mini as fucking evidence that nintendo themselves weren't sure the wiiu would have backward compatibility.
I like the BC via emulation. Has Nintendo ever done it that way ?
N64 failed NOT because of fan bitching.See. It's this negativity that causes developers not want to release games. Support for the N64 was bad and it just got worse. And who's fault is it? It's the fans. We didn't bitch at the developers when they started releasing fewer games, nor did we bitch when they started releasing shovelware titles. And now, we're not bitching at them at all, even though there is such a lack of games and that pisses us off to no end. And people call themselves fans. All they do is criticize Nintendo for their bad business plans and underpowered machine. If only people would divert their energies from bashing Nintendo towards getting them to release games for the U, it might have a fighting chance.
Fair enough.N64 failed NOT because of fan bitching.
First of, N64 is the strongest console during fifth generation.
It had more RAM than the PS1 and even more with the Expansion Pak. You're thinking of texture buffers.In terms of spec it blows PS1 out of water. But it was lacking in RAM size, making it extremely hard for developers to develop game at.
That was a terrible design choice indeed.To make it worst it still uses cartridge as opposed to optical disc.
Yep. Cartridge games at that point in time were just too expensive.That seriously limits the amount of content developers can put on it, as cartridge is much more expensive per megabyte. One example is Resident Evil 2 N64 port, where background and cut scene quality are inferior than PS1 due to being overly compressed to fit 2 CD size data into 64 MB cartridge. Developers and publisher much prefer optical disc, since it has more freedom in developing and cost far less to produce.
Also true.Finally, N64 entered the competition too late, by then PS1 had already have many developers lined up for it.
But the least popular console (Wii U) has backwards compatibility and the more popular consoles (xB1, ps4) don't.
N64 failed NOT because of fan bitching.
First of, N64 is the strongest console during fifth generation. In terms of spec it blows PS1 out of water. But it was lacking in RAM size, making it extremely hard for developers to develop game at. To make it worst it still uses cartridge as opposed to optical disc. That seriously limits the amount of content developers can put on it, as cartridge is much more expensive per megabyte. One example is Resident Evil 2 N64 port, where background and cut scene quality are inferior than PS1 due to being overly compressed to fit 2 CD size data into 64 MB cartridge. Developers and publisher much prefer optical disc, since it has more freedom in developing and cost far less to produce.
Finally, N64 entered the competition too late, by then PS1 had already have many developers lined up for it.
N64 failed because of bad system design and too late in the game.
Do you want a powerful (truly Next Gen) Wii U
*snip*
But really there was no need for WiiU to go with the same architecture just to maintain backwards compatibility. They could have gone x86 and developed an emulator. Dolphin is already pretty good on x86, and Nintendo would have had all the resources available to implement some serious high-level emulation to get a decent speed on even a mid range x86 cpu. Fact is it's surely far cheaper R&D wise to evolve an existing architecture than to go with something new. And they are paying the price for that now.
Yeah, who needs backwards compatibility when you've got Call of Booty and GTA V.But the least popular console (Wii U) has backwards compatibility and the more popular consoles (xB1, ps4) don't.