Quantcast
Ubisoft says Wii U is “Not really.” next-gen

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Ubisoft says Wii U is “Not really.” next-gen

radha said:

The only way i see the controller getting much attention (beyong experiments and copies) is if sony can emulate it with ps3+vita making it the interaction justificable becuase of the size of the market.

But that market will be seen even smaller than the WiiU one, bundled device versus optional, if anything the Wii U could help the PS3+Vita. The Wii had a similar promise of intercomunications between the console and handheld and only a few titles used it. What was the problem? They've said not everyone owned a Wii and a DS (eh?), and that the Wii U will change this since everyone will have one.



@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

tag "¡Viva la Ñ!" - WRUR

Around the Network

When did the definition of "generation" turn into some nebulous tech spec ceiling?

Fucking stop that.



WHERE IS MY KORORINPA 3

Resident_Hazard said:
HappySqurriel said:
Resident_Hazard,

I don't fully disagree with you but I don't really agree with you either. We really haven't heard from actual developers about what the performance of the Wii U is, and we have information that the development kits are under-clocked hardware and probably not based on the customized chip-sets.

Certainly, we won't see "miracles" and the Wii U will not seem to have a massive graphical leap above what the HD consoles currently do; but I suspect that will be the case for Sony and Microsoft's next generation console's too. Primary graphical assets (like character models) have about as much detail as we should ever expect them to, and the impact of increased detail from secondary graphical assets (important environmental features) and tertiary details won't have that much of an impact on the visuals of a game; and most of the graphical effects that will be used in next generation games are already being used on the HD consoles, and the primary difference will be that more of them will be used on an object at a time.

To put it another way, the Zelda Wii U demo doesn't look that much different than what has been done on the HD consoles but what improvements can be made to make it look dramatically better? If this game has a similar jump in visual quality from the tech demo to the released game that we saw with the Gamecube and the N64, what could really be done to make the game look better?

 

There seems to be this collective disbelief among gamers suddenly that graphics "couldn't possibly get much better," which I think  is silly, bordering on ignorant (and I mean no offense as I know people often loathe the word "ignorant").  But we have no idea how much better things can get, and we won't until--really--someone does it.  The new Unreal Engine shows graphics that, as it sounds, might not exactly be possible on the Xbox360 or PS3--at least without some kind of compromise.

I find it hard to imagine graphical and engine effects improving much over what we have now, but I've felt this way in the past, and I know that it's just silly to think that things couldn't improve much.  Keeping in mind the old rule that computing power doubles every 18 months, and this generation is lasting longer than any other, there are some massively powerful machines on the horizon.  Engines are pushing this generation to it's max now--Frost 2 and Unreal and the CryEngine 3.

It's not just general graphics either, it's graphical effects, physics, lighting, reflections, refractions, number of things animating at once, level of animation detail, level of AI detail, number of players playing at once, framerates, size and scope and more.  I see all the time where games are limited by modern technology.  Blurry, surprisingly low-res textures are in pretty much every game.  Gears of War hides it's limitations in fairly linear stages with scripted events.  L.A. Noire has some often terrible framerate issues.  I see visible seams in polygons.  I see textures being drawn in.  I see pop-up moving through game worlds.  I see clipping all the time.  

Essentially, I see the limitations of this generation all over the place now.  And I'm sure you and pretty much everyone else sees it, too.  This generation has never looked better--but it's also very easy for us to now see it's age.  We're used to the current consoles and what they can do, and we're used to their limitations.  

I don't know exactly how much better things can get or look, but I know enough to know I shouldn't dismiss how much further things can go.  Personally, I don't think a new console generation should ever come about unless true advancement can be shown--a major, obvious leap forward.  And it could be that Microsoft and Sony want to make sure they actually can show a big enough leap forward.  For Nintendo, it's easy.  Pretty much anything they did was going to look better than the Wii.  

A new rumor cropped up from GameInformer that Avalanche Studios, the developers of Just Cause, are currently "expecting" a new generation, and new consoles in 2014.  It sounds like they don't have Xbox 720 or PS4 dev kits, and are speculating based on their experience in the industry.  2014 is just fine by me, and by that time (if it does turn out this way), we should see some incredible, currently unfathomable improvement in gaming.  

After all, in two generations, what was once a "really amazing, detailed and incredible FMV sequence" now pales in comparison to the average gameplay footage of any major disk-based release on Xbox360 or PS3.  The leap from PS2 to PS3, or Xbox to Xbox360 was arguably the biggest this industry has ever seen.  Why would we dare assume that the leap to the next generation would pale to this?  Because graphics seem to have reached an apex?  It can always get better!  The next generation may feature Bulletstorm-like over-the-top antics without being scripted events.  That much insanity, detail and chaos--all in real-time, and dynamic.  A game like Prototype with Gears of War-level detail in every corner.  No more compromises:

No more "small scripted area in order to have the most intensive graphics."  (Gears of War)
No more "stuttering framerates to allow for a detail-rich area."  (L.A. Noire)
No more "compromising graphics to fit as much action on-screen at once." (Prototype)
No more low res textures.
No more polygonal seams.
No more draw-in or pop-up.
And if not totally "no more," then certainly, "a helluva lot less."

 

All I'm sayin' is, we shouldn't dismiss how much further developers can push things just because this generation seems to have reached the top where graphics are concerned.  It about a lot more than just graphics, and even those can still be improved.

Nintendo hasn't been interested in pushing the tech of their machines into the stratosphere for two generations now.  The GameCube was a powerhouse in it's time, easily more powerful than the PS2 and Dreamcast, but since then, it's been all about conservative power output in their machines.  There is no indication that Wii U is pushing any boundaries that haven't already been met (technically) by the PS3 or Xbox360, and that keeps with Nintendo's current style anyway.  Microsoft and Sony, on the other hand, I expect them to pull out all stops where hardware is concerned--and I think they'll blow our minds.

You do realise that most of the things you listed in the no more section are bottlenecks created by having shit for nothing memory in current hardware right?



Viper1 said:
Resident_Hazard said:

Saying the PC is "already stronger than the PS4 will most likely be" based on no logic, information, or intelligent thought is a foolhardy comment at best, deliberate ignorance from someone who knows they're wrong and too stubborn to admit it at worst.

The PC, as it currently is, is barely a step up beyond the abilities of the PS3 and Xbox360, and to be truly advanced over either of those consoles means spending vastly more money on hardware to upgrade the PC to that level than it costs to simply own a PS3 or Xbox360.

I consider myself quit well versed in hardware technology and build computers as a side project for fun.  If you like, I can build a PC for under $400 that will most certainly take down the PS3/X360 in game performance.   As for competing against current top end PC hardware, not a chance.

The PS3/X360 may render a game at sub-HD levels or even 720p if you're lucky but rarely with much AA applied and then you'll get 30fps...60 if, again, you're lucky.   A top end PC will take the same game with better textures, more polygons, better shaders and give you 1920 x 1080 or higher, with lots of AA, lots of AF and more than 60 fps quite easily.

I don't think you grasp just how much more powerful PC's are than the HD consoles.  Irstupid is actually correct.  The PS4/Next X will not exceed the gaming capabilities of top end hardware right now.


They still have 4 years to.... well, put the performance of 3 GTX580s or 3 6950s into a single chip that draws much less power...... I mean, it might be possible in 4 years time to surpass that if they use the latest tech in 4-5 years, would definitely have better tessellation which would make a big difference in how games look and change how games are made. But when you count in the R&D part of the consoles, it's very unlikely that they can keep the cost to a reasonable level without gimping something to create a bottleneck just like what they did this gen, they need to reach a point of balance, and would never beat PCs on the market at their release time frame in general.



4-5 years time? You think the PS4 and Next X will use GPU's from 2015-16?

If you are going to call them showing up 5 years from now, what prevents Nintendo from releasing a new console 5 years from now? 5 years ago was 2006...didn't we get new consoles that year?



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
Viper1 said:
4-5 years time? You think the PS4 and Next X will use GPU's from 2015-16?

If you are going to call them showing up 5 years from now, what prevents Nintendo from releasing a new console 5 years from now? 5 years ago was 2006...didn't we get new consoles that year?

They did come up with that whole 10 year plan BS so we'll have to wait and see lol. Nintendo would be like, 2017 at this point, and MS/Sony will prolly be 2013-2015 (Unless Sony is stupid again and comes at 2016,) but if it's 2015, then it's possible that the GPU would be pretty powerful. GPUs are constantly under R&D anyways, they can work on a console variant at the same time like the 360 did that's not clocked as high and is more power efficient. Would never top the PC on performance from the same period of time though.



Viper1 said:
Resident_Hazard said:

Saying the PC is "already stronger than the PS4 will most likely be" based on no logic, information, or intelligent thought is a foolhardy comment at best, deliberate ignorance from someone who knows they're wrong and too stubborn to admit it at worst.

The PC, as it currently is, is barely a step up beyond the abilities of the PS3 and Xbox360, and to be truly advanced over either of those consoles means spending vastly more money on hardware to upgrade the PC to that level than it costs to simply own a PS3 or Xbox360.

I consider myself quit well versed in hardware technology and build computers as a side project for fun.  If you like, I can build a PC for under $400 that will most certainly take down the PS3/X360 in game performance.   As for competing against current top end PC hardware, not a chance.

The PS3/X360 may render a game at sub-HD levels or even 720p if you're lucky but rarely with much AA applied and then you'll get 30fps...60 if, again, you're lucky.   A top end PC will take the same game with better textures, more polygons, better shaders and give you 1920 x 1080 or higher, with lots of AA, lots of AF and more than 60 fps quite easily.

I don't think you grasp just how much more powerful PC's are than the HD consoles.  Irstupid is actually correct.  The PS4/Next X will not exceed the gaming capabilities of top end hardware right now.

Maybe this is just me, but I fail to see how a modern "high end" PC is more powerful than hardware that doesn't even exist yet.  The only way to know this would be to have the hardware specs of non-existant future machines.

Not that this really matters since PC gaming has long since fallen behind console gaming where sales are concerned.  For one thing, just because a tweaked high-end PC could handily show-up a modern console, most consumers have a vastly easier time playing those complex games on a console, and most don't bother with what is otherwise an expensive endeavor for the regular consumer.  Just because you can maybe build a super powerful PC for relatively cheap doesn't mean that's even remotely the norm for consumers.  Consumers pay three or four times what you quoted for Macs that handle a great deal less than playing Crysis 2 at it's maximum settings.  

I guess what I'm saying is that, while you--a tech-ish guy--can cleverly build a powerful PC for the cost of a PS3, the average consumer is unable to do so, and is content buying an inferior machine already built by, say, Apple or HP or Dell or Compaq, etc.  Especially if said consumer is using a laptop, which are typically no where near as easy to tweak as a PC tower that can just have more crap crammed into it.  I'm a huge gamer, but I really don't care about constantly upgrading my computer so that I can play the latest games at their maximum settings.  I just buy those games on the Xbox360.  

Of course, if they aren't on the Xbox360, I just don't bother.  I have enough to play anyway.

 

Edit:  Then again, it might not matter how the exact specs of the next Xbox and Playstation stack up against PC's of the same era anyway, since the only people that typically care about such differences are the extreme-minority tech-focused PC gamers looking to make those comparisons.  Okay, and the occasional developer that has the time and money to want to make the most technically powerful game imaginable.



I'll still Buy Wii-U :)



There Are Many Paths to Gaming Heaven

Resident_Hazard said:
Viper1 said:
Resident_Hazard said:

Saying the PC is "already stronger than the PS4 will most likely be" based on no logic, information, or intelligent thought is a foolhardy comment at best, deliberate ignorance from someone who knows they're wrong and too stubborn to admit it at worst.

The PC, as it currently is, is barely a step up beyond the abilities of the PS3 and Xbox360, and to be truly advanced over either of those consoles means spending vastly more money on hardware to upgrade the PC to that level than it costs to simply own a PS3 or Xbox360.

I consider myself quit well versed in hardware technology and build computers as a side project for fun.  If you like, I can build a PC for under $400 that will most certainly take down the PS3/X360 in game performance.   As for competing against current top end PC hardware, not a chance.

The PS3/X360 may render a game at sub-HD levels or even 720p if you're lucky but rarely with much AA applied and then you'll get 30fps...60 if, again, you're lucky.   A top end PC will take the same game with better textures, more polygons, better shaders and give you 1920 x 1080 or higher, with lots of AA, lots of AF and more than 60 fps quite easily.

I don't think you grasp just how much more powerful PC's are than the HD consoles.  Irstupid is actually correct.  The PS4/Next X will not exceed the gaming capabilities of top end hardware right now.

Maybe this is just me, but I fail to see how a modern "high end" PC is more powerful than hardware that doesn't even exist yet.  The only way to know this would be to have the hardware specs of non-existant future machines.

Not that this really matters since PC gaming has long since fallen behind console gaming where sales are concerned.  For one thing, just because a tweaked high-end PC could handily show-up a modern console, most consumers have a vastly easier time playing those complex games on a console, and most don't bother with what is otherwise an expensive endeavor for the regular consumer.  Just because you can maybe build a super powerful PC for relatively cheap doesn't mean that's even remotely the norm for consumers.  Consumers pay three or four times what you quoted for Macs that handle a great deal less than playing Crysis 2 at it's maximum settings.  

I guess what I'm saying is that, while you--a tech-ish guy--can cleverly build a powerful PC for the cost of a PS3, the average consumer is unable to do so, and is content buying an inferior machine already built by, say, Apple or HP or Dell or Compaq, etc.  Especially if said consumer is using a laptop, which are typically no where near as easy to tweak as a PC tower that can just have more crap crammed into it.  I'm a huge gamer, but I really don't care about constantly upgrading my computer so that I can play the latest games at their maximum settings.  I just buy those games on the Xbox360.  

Of course, if they aren't on the Xbox360, I just don't bother.  I have enough to play anyway.

 

Edit:  Then again, it might not matter how the exact specs of the next Xbox and Playstation stack up against PC's of the same era anyway, since the only people that typically care about such differences are the extreme-minority tech-focused PC gamers looking to make those comparisons.  Okay, and the occasional developer that has the time and money to want to make the most technically powerful game imaginable.

I don't see how your post is relevant to what we were talking about.  For the most part, I agree with what you are saying here.  But consumer ease of use and hardware performance are independant topics.

As for predicting hardware performance X years from today is a matter of watching trends from previous years, and understanding upcoming technology.  Future consoles built 2-3 years from now will be built on existing and upcoming technology.   Technology can be predictable when it's built upon established processes, protocols and technologies.   When you've seen A through L it's not too difficult to predict M given that M will be based on the concepts established by A through L.



The rEVOLution is not being televised