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

[TripleSMoon]

*Image*

*Sniff* It's SO freaking beautiful...

 

[Veho]

*image*

Where did you get that picture? The 2k and 4k rectangles aren't to scale

 

[Foxi4]

*image*

Where did you get that picture? The 2k and 4k rectangles aren't to scale

http://en.wikipedia....(VCD_to_4K).svg

It's really more of an example rather than an accurate scale - if you want to be accurate, just use something 4K as the base.

A graph of standard video resolutions as encountered in different media. To ease comparison, all sizes are scaled to 16:9 as seen on a hypothetical screen that displays at least one source pixel per pixel visible. Note that for older formats like VCD and DVD that are optimized for 4:3, this loses some vertical resolution. The HDTV resolutions are displayed 1:1. For the cinema formats (2K, 4K) we show a hypothetical sensor that achieves max. resolution at 16:9, while in reality they're usually optimized for wider screens.

 

[Veho]

http://en.wikipedia....(VCD_to_4K).svg

It's really more of an example rather than an accurate scale - if you want to be accurate, just use something 4K as the base.

Okay, I got it now. The 4K and 2K refer to the horizontal resolution, not the full pixel count. The picture is accurate, I was thinking of something else.

 

[Fishaman P]

It doesn't matter how powerful it is, the whole concept is flawed.

Tablets are not the trend, they're a fad.

 

[Foxi4]

It doesn't matter how powerful it is, the whole concept is flawed.

Tablets are not the trend, they're a fad.

It's a controller with a touchscreen, not a tablet computer. If you think that there is no place for touchscreens in gaming, I think you should re-evaluate your statement after carefuly analyzing the DS, DSi and 3DS sales charts.

The controller is not portable to the point that you'd be able to take it outside and use it as a tablet computer, it's simply an attempt at adding a touch-based interface to the system.

 

[Veho]

Tablets are not the trend, they're a fad.

Good thing the WiiU isn't a tablet then.

 

[TripleSMoon]

It doesn't matter how powerful it is, the whole concept is flawed.

Tablets are not the trend, they're a fad.

You realize they said the same thing about TVs, right?

It's a controller with a touchscreen, not a tablet computer. If you think that there is no place for touchscreens in gaming, I think you should re-evaluate your statement after carefuly analyzing the DS, DSi and 3DS sales charts.

The controller is not portable to the point that you'd be able to take it outside and use it as a tablet computer, it's simply an attempt at adding a touch-based interface to the system.

^This

 

[silver_ryder]

WiiU isn't a tablet...

But overall, only time ill say if is a "Fad" or just like Wiimote, move, kinect, or the analogic stick, rumble, etc, etc, etc...

 

[spotanjo3]

It is better to wait until the fact is reveal for the next month rather than a rumor and guess because it won't work that way and waste our time.

 

[TripleSMoon]

It is better to wait until the fact is reveal for the next month rather than a rumor and guess because it won't work that way and waste our time.

This is a thread asking how powerful you would LIKE it to be: Not how powerful it WILL be. Of course there's no way for us to know the latter, yet.

 

[chris888222]

It being next gen, I hope it would be at least 25% more powerful than current PS3. I hope decent software is in it too. YouTube I hope will also be included.

Games also make an essence of a good console.

 

[MakiManPR]

At least 3x more powerful than the PS3

 

[Eerpow]

People are unrealistically expecting to be blown away with the future platforms just like with previous generations, they describe things that would cause manufacturing costs reach unreasonably high amounts.
Basically, people are demanding processing power that goes beyond that of a normal gaming PC rig but stays below a $400 price point.
I want to be clear that 4K video resolution is not a natural step for future gaming hardware, it's an expensive and unneeded addition that wouldn't add anything to the experience other than a number for bragging rights. 1080p already have more pixels than what we humanly can distinguish so there is no need to go anywhere above that for the average consumer.

I think that none of the future platforms will have a price tag above $400, and I believe that unless Nintendo stupidly thinks that PS360 are their main competitors, we won't be seeing any major differences between future cross platform games.
Sure numbers, just like in the past, will tell a different story but other than reading what is written on a spec sheet the general gaming public is going to have a hard time differentiating future multi platform games without side by side comparisons.

Nintendo has already stated that they are planning to have the Wii U as their main future platform intended for people that consider games as one of their hobbies.
Iwata mentioned that with the Wii they were able to expand the width of the gaming audience through having more games of the accessible type like the Wiisports/fit/play games for example, the downside to this was that such a market alone won't be any real source for financial profit in the long run as these people are very likely to move on.

He admits that with the Wii they created a split between the casual and core gamers and that they by creating a casual image will have a hard time getting back people who otherwise had Nintendo as their main brand.

While Wii does have many compelling titles that are geared towards the core audience to enjoy it falls short in many areas such as online, even fans of Nintendo usually have other platforms in their household along with their Wii to fully meet their gaming "needs".
Iwata wants to correct this problem with the 3DS and the Wii U, he says that changing a brand reputation is hard, but achievable.
He believes that getting better developer support and providing people with better online and deeper gaming experiences is going to be the new key to success this time.
The Wii U is a next gen console and Nintendo has no plans to go the Wii route again judging from their current statements about their performance on the home console market with the noticeably weaker Wii.

Iwata has been very clear about their efforts and goals, so in short I have no doubt that the Wii U is built with gamers in mind. And I hope Nintendo succeed with proving that this E3.

Also if the rumors are true then Nintendo is currently staying very close with third party developers optimizing the Wii U for future needs. Iwata has already mentioned that the Wii U will be 3DTV compatible for example, it's clear that they don't want another "HD" scenario again.

 

[BornInBlack]

You have to remember that a console generation is usually at least 5-7 years (heck, the PS3 swears to stick by a 10-year plan). Why exclude a feature that could very easily become very usable in just a few years, just because it isn't available now?

not that it wouldn't be grand, but i just don't see it happening, not with nintendo anyhow. They have always shown that they are about making the most of yesterday's technology before progressing to tomorrows'. Nintendo didn't add HD to the wii for a number of reasons, but one very important one was adoption rates of hd tv's. Given that 4k has yet to impact the market let alone have any sort of adoption rate i doubt it. to go a bit off topic, im not sure how ecstatic the general public would be about having to upgrade their TV's again, even within a 5 year time. The majority switch to HD was a long one and as mentioned before, 1080p has not been fully tapped by consoles. Next-Next gen? Who knows? 4k will likely have been around for at least a couple years by then. This is all speculation anyway

 

[DiscostewSM]

Could you imagine the processing needed to render a full 3D scene going from 1080p to 4K resolution?

With 16:9 aspect ratio, 4K would be 4000x2250

480p = 854x480 = 409,920 pixels
720p = 1280x720 = 921,600 pixels (225% of 480p)
1080p = 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels (225% of 720p)
2250p = 4000x2250 = 9,000,000 pixels (434% of 1080p)

That's quite a jump.

 

[ThePowerOutage]

4k output is what I meant. But I was half joking anyway.

 

[Foxi4]

4k output is what I meant. But I was half joking anyway.

That... would actually make quality worse.

If the scene is rendered in 1080p, then artificially resized into 4K and then, again, artificially resized to the maximum resolution of a given TV... you're going to get either massive blur or horrible pixelation. Video is not supposed to be resized like this on the fly - a scene looks best in its original, intended resolution.

 

[ThePowerOutage]

Like the PS3 does for 1080p scenes that are actually a lower resolution (eg. 720p)
IDK how it works. I probably have my information wrong.
But anyway, real time 1080p.

 

[Foxi4]

Like the PS3 does for 1080p scenes that are actually a lower resolution (eg. 720p)
IDK how it works. I probably have my information wrong.
But anyway, real time 1080p.

That's probably done by stretching, but there is a relatively small difference between 720p and 1080p - 4K is almost 5 times as large (435% larger according to DiscostewSM). Take any image and enlarge it 5 times using whatever resizing method you want - it's going to look bad. If you resize it by a smaller degree, like 2 times, the difference in quality will be negligible.