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

[Guild McCommunist]

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]

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.

 

[TripleSMoon]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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

 

[the_randomizer]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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 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.

"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]

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.

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]

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]

"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. It might not be a huge difference in price but the WiiU isn't that much less than the PS4."

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

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

I give it an 9 out 10. lol

 

[Foxi4]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.