By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
g911turbo on 29 April 2013
Edit Thread
AnthonyW86 said:
g911turbo said:
ethomaz said:

It is a good job compared to PS360 but underpowered compared to PS4/Nextbox.


I think the Wii U will produce some great visuals.  There is a law of diminishing returns in effect here, so while there is no doubt that the PS4 is more powerful than the Wii U (even without knowing exactly what's under the Wii U hood), is is slightly subjective as to what is underpowered or not.

For example, I have a Porsche 911.  You have a Nissan Altima.  Is the Altima underpowered or is the Porsche over powered?  If money is no object, the choice is clear, but of course at the end of the day money matters.  MANY would argue the Porsche is a waste of money / power etc.  

Nintendo made a "risky" move for a second time in a row with an alternative take on a controller.  Will it pay off again?  Only time will tell.  But the porting games from the PS4 to Wii U should be even easier than it was porting from the PS3 to the Wii.  Developers are not doing so because they don't see the return on investment being there (yet, if ever), not because the system is "underpowered". 

Yes there is and PS4 doesn't pass the point where it takes into effect. When it comes to power consumption it is exactly at the right spot power/performance wise, atleast in the graphics department. The same goes for price/performance. Let's say the cpu/gpu of the PS4 is 4 times as expensive to produce but it's 6 times as fast. Then the returns are greater than the investment.

Technically, the law of diminishing returns is an equation / curve.  It's always in effect.  But I think what I get what you mean based on the second part of your paragraph.  So I agree on that.

 

The second part of your statement is very true if looking at things from a purely technical standpoint.  For example, things like flops, or bandwidth.  Things you can measure, then compare vs cost.  But what if you take the subjective (no joke) nature of what that technology acheives, might be a different story.  For example, your chip costs 4x as much, has 6x the flops, but when compared side by side 90% of participants in a study say they only see 1.5x of a difference (for the better).  Perception is study in psychology and certainly is subjective.  I don't play FLOPS, I play games!

 

Besides, I'm not trying to split hairs with you.  All I'm saying is that Nintendo is taking a different approach (again).  Last gen, it almost appears that most people that owned a Wii also ended up owning 1 of (if not both) of the other two consoles.  I think Nintendo is OK with that IF they can replicate it again.  They are potentially some solid game releases and a price cut away from doing just that.  Kids like their call of duty (in fact, more kids I know play that game than ANY nintendo game lol).  But they also like their Marios/ MARIO KART, Zeldas, etc.  In order to get the best of both you almost NEED to own 2 of the 3 consoles.  Maybe even all 3.  

 

The question is what do the families/gamers on a lower budget do?  If Nintendo can achieve a lower price, they might win the families.  Gamers will save for the one system that has the most games they like, so PS4/Xbox might have an advantage there with a plethora of 3rd party support.  Anyhow, getting a bit off topic here, but it's unjustified to call the Wii U underpowered when it really depends on what context you put it in.  It would be just as unjustified as me calling the PS4 overpowered.  All subjective.

 

All this coming from someone who buys every system, with no bias.