| Soundwave said:
This isn't about "making friends", this is just a business. Nintendo is irrelevant enough to a lot of third parties that simply ignoring Nintendo is a very viable option when time/cost investments are factored into the equation. If Nintendo wanted to change that, they should've made a different type of hardware system. Period. |
I agree that not every third party will be supporting the Wii U but few, if any, will treat Nintendo the way EA has.
Your whole argument about "no third party support" is flawed. They've got Crytek, Capcom, Ubisoft, TT, WB, Square Enix, Criterion, Atlus, Namco-Bandai, Sega, Platinum, Activision, Precursor, Slightly Mad, and Indies out the ass. And that's only what we know about, considering the SMT x FE collaboration is supposedly one of many they have in the works. Hell, even EA's hand might be forced considering the FIFA and NFL license deals, not to mention the one with Star Wars since Disney has a strong relationship with Nintendo....a real one at that. How many can you name that are absolutely, 100% not supporting the Wii U ever?
"chipset that performs like it's from 2006" is also completely false in every single way. It is clear you know nothing about technology if you honestly believe that to be true. I am guessing that you think that the Wii U is barely more powerful/slightly less powerful than the 360/PS3 based on launch ports. Thing is, you need to compare launch games to launch games. Resistance looked good at the time, but doesn't look that great when you compare it to new games, same goes for Condemned or Perfect Dark Zero......if that was the best games were ever going to look on the 360/PS3....ugh.
The simple fact that the Wii U can run those sloppy launch ports slightly worse/the same/better than their 360/PS3 counterparts which were designed around an entirely different architecture while only using 33 watts of power is impressive in it's own right. The 360 CPU may have a higher clock speed, but as curl-6 mentioned, that is comparing apples to oranges especially when it is a newer chip that is more efficient all around. The Wii U has fewer pipeline stages than even the PS4/720 (4 vs 21+) which means less time is lost if there is a processing error, it has more cache than the 360/PS3 and has a more evenly distributed cache than the PS4 (3mb for 3 cores vs 4mb for 8 cores), OOE trumps IOE every, single, time; has strong SIMD, and supports SMP. The GPU is almost entirely custom with Directx 11 equivalent capabilities (360's advanced 2005 chip only supports Dx9), utilizes GPGPU which means the CPU doesn't need to be powerful (it could probably be less powerful than it is and things would still be okay), and has 32mb of eDRAM.....which is extremely high bandwidth, embedded right on the GPU for very fast access, includes the framebuffer and z-buffer which are sensitive to bandwidh limitations (meaning the Wii U's "low bandwidth" isn't actually a problem), has enough space to handle some of the texture data and still has room to make tesselation even more efficient than it already is.
Chipset that performs like it's from 2006? Not even close.
You're right, this isn't about making friends and is a business. Nintendo is in the business of making games and making a profit. If they can do so without every single 3rd party on board....why would they need to consult them to make the hardware? That would be "making friends." When you ask third parties exactly what they want, and give them literally everything, you end up with an expensive piece of hardware that will still be sold at a loss, insane R&D costs, massively inflated budgets, and games that need to sell over 3-5 million retail units just to turn a profit, more to be counted as a success. That's just absurd. If Sony or Microsoft weren't in the business of "making friends" they might have actually made money on the PS3/360 instead of losing billions. Combined, they lost about $8 billion with their consoles. Nintendo even profited when they had to carry the poor selling Gamecube by themselves.
Essay Pro