Hardware How powerful does the WiiU have to be for you to be satisfied with it?

[jalaneme]

Er, mind telling me your PC's specs?

But these don't exactly tell us much about the Wii U. Just some basic details.

sig, also the amount of ram used for end consumers is beyond a joke, 1.5gb? seriously? also is that 512MB just used for the os or can you download apps on it? or is that is what the 8gb of storage space is used for and the 512mb is juse used for the os?

 

[Deleted_171835]

Er, mind telling me your PC's specs?

But these don't exactly tell us much about the Wii U. Just some basic details.

sig, also the amount of ram used for end consumers is beyond a joke, 1.5gb? seriously? also is that 512MB just used for the os or can you download apps on it? or is that is what the 8gb of storage space is used for and the 512mb is juse used for the os?

...How can you judge that based on the RAM, though? In a PC, you have an OS and numerous other things that need RAM. A console is a closed system so 2GB (or even 1.5GB) should be fine.

Supposedly, there's 512MB dedicated to the OS. Not confirmed, though.

 

[10_0ARMY]

Consoles are idiot proof. You don't need to know your console's specs to get a game for it, just go to the store and buy the version for it. From the early screens and videos, the graphics look great and that is all I hated about the Wii. It is bound to be as powerful as Xbox360 and PS3 and probably more powerful. A lot of people would rather play on a console in front of a tv rather than on a pc. Plus, doesn't getting a mega-powerful PC cost way more in the end than a console? Great graphics plus great games is all I want at this point and that requires power, which the WiiU most certainly will have .

 

[TripleSMoon]

A lot of people would rather play on a console in front of a tv rather than on a pc.

I agree! People don't want to hold a dinky screen right in front of their faces when they play...

Spoiler

Oh, wait.

 

[10_0ARMY]

A lot of people would rather play on a console in front of a tv rather than on a pc.

I agree! People don't want to hold a dinky screen right in front of their faces when they play...

Spoiler

Oh, wait.

lol. I guess I'm just so used to the tv - console model to want to change right now

 

[Deleted User]

On a par with the next generation of consoles.
Yeah, the Wii had an excuse for being 'underpowered'- revolutionary motion control. So, the other consoles caught up, but Kinect and Move are great technologies- and have no games for their control schemes.
Wii U? It's stuck a tablet with a couple of joysticks out the door, called it 'revolutionary' and even Iwata said they made 'cutbacks' to make the console and its fugly tablet 1/2kg affordable.
And they're horrible online. Miiverse? What's that?!

But back to the point- it's gotta be as powerful as the next gen, or it'll cripple into irrelevance. Even MS has a similar technology out there like the Wii U Controller (See: Xbox Smartglass), because Nintendo can't fall into the trap/gift of complacency the other consoles have anymore. Their console isn't revolutionary like they think it is, and they might've priced themselves out of the family market.

Yeah, so significantly more powerful/ Half-step higher.
Remember, the wii U is going to compete in the eighth generation of consoles.

p.s reply to me, i need to talk about this stuff :3

 

[TripleSMoon]

Even MS has a similar technology out there like the Wii U Controller (See: Xbox Smartglass)

I really don't think Smartglass is as much of a competitor to the UPad as people think. Smartglass lets you use a phone or tablet to display stuff in game, but that's it. With the UPad, you have a touchscreen in the middle of a true controller, with which you can control the game. With Smartglass, unless they develop special touch-only games, you'll be limited to dropping the controller and picking up the tablet/phone to look at whatever is on there for the game, making it more of an inconvenient gimmick, at least in my opinion.

In short, the difference between Smartglass and the UPad is similar to the difference between Wii Motion and Kinect: One has buttons/controllers, the other doesnt.

 

[Deleted User]

Even MS has a similar technology out there like the Wii U Controller (See: Xbox Smartglass)

I really don't think Smartglass is as much of a competitor to the UPad as people think. Smartglass lets you use a phone or tablet to display stuff in game, but that's it. With the UPad, you have a touchscreen in the middle of a true controller, with which you can control the game. With Smartglass, unless they develop special touch-only games, you'll be limited to dropping the controller and picking up the tablet/phone to look at whatever is on there for the game, making it more of an inconvenient gimmick, at least in my opinion.

In short, the difference between Smartglass and the UPad is similar to the difference between Wii Motion and Kinect: One has buttons/controllers, the other doesnt.

Well, whilst the difference about buttons is true- the SmartGlass demo showed real-time changes to some kind of american football game. I see the gimmick thing, but if that's the case, surely the Wii U controller classes as a gimmick too? The concept video showed the IR sensor on the bar and the controller being used in conjunction with ANOTHER wii remote- surely that is an inconvenience, and Kinect would be better in that case?

 

[TripleSMoon]

Well, whilst the difference about buttons is true- the SmartGlass demo showed real-time changes to some kind of american football game. I see the gimmick thing, but if that's the case, surely the Wii U controller classes as a gimmick too? The concept video showed the IR sensor on the bar and the controller being used in conjunction with ANOTHER wii remote- surely that is an inconvenience, and Kinect would be better in that case?

Point taken. But my main beef here is that you can truly play conventional games with the added benefit of a touchscreen PRACTICALLY using the UPad, with no need for picking up other controllers (even if some games DO stupidly use the Wiimote in conjunction with it). Whereas with Smartglass, you really can't. Even with the wiimote and nunchuck on the Wii, you could play conventional games using it, with motion thrown in (id est, Metroid Prime 3, CoD, or Smash Bros.)

 

[Vinnymac]

We are talking about the generation after the next generation. If this isn't going to be more powerful than the predecessors what is the point of being a successor. How much better, makes for an interesting topic. I would say that as long as the Wii U has 1080p one day, and allows for our new standards like HDMI and digital surround sound audio, most people will be happy. If the graphics chip is better than the 360/PS3's that also helps. Nintendo is always trying to innovate, and I think that is what they are attempting to do with the Wii U, who knows if it will sell like the Wii originally did.

What is with all the Nintendo Sequels? Pokemon BW 2, and now the Wii U. It is like someone let Nintendo aware of the fact that we all know they like making remakes.

 

[The Milkman]

On a par with the next generation of consoles.
Yeah, the Wii had an excuse for being 'underpowered'- revolutionary motion control. So, the other consoles caught up, but Kinect and Move are great technologies- and have no games for their control schemes.
Wii U? It's stuck a tablet with a couple of joysticks out the door, called it 'revolutionary' and even Iwata said they made 'cutbacks' to make the console and its fugly tablet 1/2kg affordable.
And they're horrible online. Miiverse? What's that?!

But back to the point- it's gotta be as powerful as the next gen, or it'll cripple into irrelevance. Even MS has a similar technology out there like the Wii U Controller (See: Xbox Smartglass), because Nintendo can't fall into the trap/gift of complacency the other consoles have anymore. Their console isn't revolutionary like they think it is, and they might've priced themselves out of the family market.

Yeah, so significantly more powerful/ Half-step higher.
Remember, the wii U is going to compete in the eighth generation of consoles.

p.s reply to me, i need to talk about this stuff :3

Not sure if joking or just Guildie...

 

[kaputnik]

Powerful enough to make half assed 360 and PS3 ports look less attractive than the native games. Graphics seems to sell, and if the native games look better than the ports, it'll be a lot harder to charge full price for a plain port without any significant enhancements.

Haven't read the whole thread, but I assume I'm not the first one to point out that the Wii U being weaker than the rest of the next gen consoles also probably will lead to third party devs not bothering with it, the same way they didn't bother with the Wii. I guess it's just too much work to scale everything down to match the weaker hardware.

Oh well, in the end I'll probably get one either way.

 

[BornInBlack]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I assume I'm not the first one to point out that the Wii U being weaker than the rest of the next gen consoles also probably will lead to third party devs not bothering with it, the same way they didn't bother with the Wii.

on this note i'd have to say my hope is it becoming the PS2 of Gen 8- this has been pointed out many times in various threads but for those who don't know what i mean:
there's a good chance [inevitability] that the Wii U will not be as powerful as either the ps4/next box, but if it's just powerful enough to be the lowest common denominator [capable of supporting all the same features if not graphics] than i doubt it will fail and may even lead to devs developing on Wii U First and porting from that version

 

[Deleted_171835]

Even MS has a similar technology out there like the Wii U Controller (See: Xbox Smartglass)

SmartGlass connects over Wi-Fi which would introduce latency. It isn't a good choice for videogames.

 

[Midna]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I assume I'm not the first one to point out that the Wii U being weaker than the rest of the next gen consoles also probably will lead to third party devs not bothering with it, the same way they didn't bother with the Wii. I guess it's just too much work to scale everything down to match the weaker hardware.

Ah yes, the same way no devs bothered with the PS2?

 

[Veho]

Ah yes, the same way no devs bothered with the PS2?

No, the same way no devs bothered with the Wii. I don't think he meant "barely perceptibly weaker", he meant "much weaker."

 

[TripleSMoon]

Ah yes, the same way no devs bothered with the PS2?

True. But that doesn't really mean much when you consider that was last generation, whereas the more recent example this generation, the Wii, shows the opposite effect. Which is more likely to happen again, the more recent example, or the generation old example?

That said, I'm hoping that we're in an era where next gen isn't as dramatically greater than this gen, compared to the last big leap, so maybe it won't be a problem.

 

[Midna]

Ah yes, the same way no devs bothered with the PS2?

No, the same way no devs bothered with the Wii. I don't think he meant "barely perceptibly weaker", he meant "much weaker."

You haven't played much PS2 have you

 

[Deleted_171835]

Ah yes, the same way no devs bothered with the PS2?

No, the same way no devs bothered with the Wii. I don't think he meant "barely perceptibly weaker", he meant "much weaker."

You haven't played much PS2 have you

It was still in the same ballpark as the other systems. Xbox/Gamecube was not a generational leap over the PS2.

 

[TripleSMoon]

It was still in the same ballpark as the other systems. Xbox/Gamecube was not a generational leap over the PS2.

Plus (and I think you pointed this out before, Soul) but multi-console games were nowhere near as big in last generation. It wasn't like this generation where if you buy a PS3 or 360, you have all the same games with the exception of a handful of exclusives. Each system, xbox, PS2, and GCN pretty much had their own libraries.