By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Wii U has no ethernet port

I never wanted a long-ass cable through my hallway in the first place.


Non-issue for me.



Around the Network

In all seriousness though, why is this an issue?

I thought in 2012 we all use WiFi? I've been WiFi only for well over 5 years now.



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

runqvist said:

Well, the guy wondered if the people who complained were going to buy a Wii U. I guess I qualify.

You know what he meant. Disingenuous replies aren't helping the forums progress, let's just put it that way.

If your questions were answered by Viper, if you still have a legitimate concern with latency in Wifi, then share. But if you're just being negative, why not just spare us all the bs?



happydolphin said:
runqvist said:

Well, the guy wondered if the people who complained were going to buy a Wii U. I guess I qualify.

You know what he meant. Disingenuous replies aren't helping the forums progress, let's just put it that way.

If your questions were answered by Viper, if you still have a legitimate concern with latency in Wifi, then share. But if you're just being negative, why not just spare us all the bs?

He meant that if someone was going to buy a console or not. Two options, either buying or not buying.

For the latter part of your post, none of my views on this matter are bs even if you don't like them. Let's just put it that way, even though there would be a better way to voice my thoughts of your post.



runqvist said:
Viper1 said:

So the problem is the location of your router rather than Wi-Fi itself.   And how does your ping go from 1ms to X + 20ms (your ethernet connection plus 20ms) when gaming online?  how are you gettign an extra 20 ms in latency when gaming compared to a direct ping?  You've got some other kind of delay thing going on somehow.

And this entire debate is about online gaming.  Not downloading.  Downloading via Wi-Fi should have practically zero perceptible difference over a wired connection.    And we won't have 4k streams for a very long time.  If you think Wi-Fi tech will remain at current latency levels then you've ignored the advancements of the tech over the just the past 4-5 years.   Not to mention that any streaming will have buffering making latency a moot point anyway (unless it's just absolutely horrible which would not be the fault of the Wi-Fi tech itself).

For online gaming, it's a waste.  You'd have absolutely no difference in online gaming expirience with a 15 Mb connect.  Provided your latency is still the same which it should be given that latency is independent of bandwidth speed.  For downloading though...jealous by thy name.

If I would know why, I would fix it. It just is. Also the latency fluctuates more on wifi than with ethernet.

Where does it say it is only about online gaming? Why would I speak of download speeds if gaming was all that I cared for? It is a possibility that those 4k streams will be available before next gen is over. Does Wii U have upgradable wifi or why are you mumbling about future tech?

This whole debate is about Wii U not have an ethernet port so online gaming would have latency issues comapred to a wired option.

We may get some low bit rate 4k streams but that would be largely pointless.  Nobody owning a 4K capable TV would want to stream a 4k image with the image quality of VHS.   But again, buffering makes the whole thing a moot point anyway.   Video feeds get buffered before and during playback.  So even if your latency fluctuated because of your WiFi signal, you'd never see it during playback.

And let's not forget data caps, like Mike mentioned.

Wii U has an 801.11 N Wi-Fi system but even older standards can gain some of the benefits of newer router technologies.  You also might want to look into beamforming, channel bonding, MIMO and 3x3:3 arrays.  



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Around the Network
burninmylight said:

If you have an Ethernet adapter for Wii, it will work with the Wii U. I still have mine.

I think that much is confirmed. I also use the dongle cause too much wireless is unnecessary and never as good as wired in stability and throughput. Wireless for me makes sense for wireless devices or if its too much of a hassle to get a wired connection on location.



Viper1 said:
runqvist said:
Viper1 said:

So the problem is the location of your router rather than Wi-Fi itself.   And how does your ping go from 1ms to X + 20ms (your ethernet connection plus 20ms) when gaming online?  how are you gettign an extra 20 ms in latency when gaming compared to a direct ping?  You've got some other kind of delay thing going on somehow.

And this entire debate is about online gaming.  Not downloading.  Downloading via Wi-Fi should have practically zero perceptible difference over a wired connection.    And we won't have 4k streams for a very long time.  If you think Wi-Fi tech will remain at current latency levels then you've ignored the advancements of the tech over the just the past 4-5 years.   Not to mention that any streaming will have buffering making latency a moot point anyway (unless it's just absolutely horrible which would not be the fault of the Wi-Fi tech itself).

For online gaming, it's a waste.  You'd have absolutely no difference in online gaming expirience with a 15 Mb connect.  Provided your latency is still the same which it should be given that latency is independent of bandwidth speed.  For downloading though...jealous by thy name.

If I would know why, I would fix it. It just is. Also the latency fluctuates more on wifi than with ethernet.

Where does it say it is only about online gaming? Why would I speak of download speeds if gaming was all that I cared for? It is a possibility that those 4k streams will be available before next gen is over. Does Wii U have upgradable wifi or why are you mumbling about future tech?

This whole debate is about Wii U not have an ethernet port so online gaming would have latency issues comapred to a wired option.

We may get some low bit rate 4k streams but that would be largely pointless.  Nobody owning a 4K capable TV would want to stream a 4k image with the image quality of VHS.   But again, buffering makes the whole thing a moot point anyway.   Video feeds get buffered before and during playback.  So even if your latency fluctuated because of your WiFi signal, you'd never see it during playback.

Wii U has an 801.11 N Wi-Fi system but even older standards can gain some of the benefits of newer router technologies.  You also might want to look into beamforming, channel bonding, MIMO and 3x3:3 arrays.  

Actually the debate started with people defeding nintendos honour with phrases like "nobody needs ethernet" and "are you people still using 802.11b or what", when nintendo could have easily put that one ethernet port on their console. It is not like it costs a lot and it does offer advantages over wifi.

We may also get decent quality 4k streams, in fact I think that it is likely before the end of next gen. If moderately compressed 4k stream would be around 300-600mbps, I would not want to buffer it with  50mbps wifi.

Do you think that wireless-n will be available to do 300mbps or higher during next gen? I am very interested in that, care to provide me with a link?

 

And since you edited your post, what is a data cap?



runqvist said:
dahuman said:
runqvist said:
menx64 said:
NiKKoM said:
Are you people still using 802.11b/g wifi or what? use 802.11n equipement.. like the WiiU supports

Quoted for truth!


 it seems like everybody tried to ignore this post...   


So what is the truth on that? 802.11n is capable of something like 50-60mbps, depending on your router.  It also has bigger latency than wired connection.

Here are some results from speedtest while downloading some videos, dl seems to be capped at 100mbps with minimal impact on ping. Note that I am using the wireless-n tablet less than 2 meters from my router, no wall between.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/2293874361.png

http://www.speedtest.net/android/286527918.png

21ms more latency and 150mbps less dl speed.

yeah uh...... tablets are not good benchmarks, they are not fast enough to cap out the wireless capabilities of your home network much like older computers can't even cap out a 100Mb connection sometimes and a lot still can't cap out 1000Mb connections with lowest possible pin, you need a real computer to do that, not tablets.

I used the tablet because it gives the best results on speedtest.net.

I usually get much better results on a powerful enough laptop with wireless, my tablet and phone usually lags behind by a lot, I'm talking like 1-2MB/s bad on new Tegra 3 or S4 devices vs like 4.5MB/s on full fledged laptops when using the internet, the gap widens as we start to do file transfers over wireless N. Tablets are fine for browsing, but I think they'll keep sucking due to power restrictions on that front.



runqvist said:

And since you edited your post, what is a data cap?



"A bandwidth cap, also known as a bit cap, limits the transfer of a specified amount of data over a period of time. Internet service providers commonly apply a cap when a channel intended to be shared by many users becomes overloaded, or may be overloaded, by a few users. Implementation of a bandwidth cap is sometimes termed a Fair Access Policy or Usage-based billing"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_cap


Most European countries have these and USA cable companies are semi following.  Comcast had data caps up to 250GB before they started throttling your speed or perhaps charge more (some one else can fill this in).  They suspended it yet reintroduced it within a few months.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/comcast-suspends-data-caps-for-now/

http://www.webpronews.com/comcast-begins-capping-data-in-the-u-s-2012-09

"Under the Nashville plan, customers who exceed their 300GB monthly data allotment will be charged $10 for every subsequent 50GB of data they cross into."



sethnintendo said:
runqvist said:

And since you edited your post, what is a data cap?



"A bandwidth cap, also known as a bit cap, limits the transfer of a specified amount of data over a period of time. Internet service providers commonly apply a cap when a channel intended to be shared by many users becomes overloaded, or may be overloaded, by a few users. Implementation of a bandwidth cap is sometimes termed a Fair Access Policy or Usage-based billing"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_cap


Most European countries have these and USA cable companies are semi following.  Comcast had data caps up to 250GB before they started throttling your speed or perhaps charge more (some one else can fill this in) but they have suspended it and now reintroduced it.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/05/comcast-suspends-data-caps-for-now/

http://www.webpronews.com/comcast-begins-capping-data-in-the-u-s-2012-09

"Under the Nashville plan, customers who exceed their 300GB monthly data allotment will be charged $10 for every subsequent 50GB of data they cross into."


So that is something which I don't have. Too bad for you if your connection has that, get another one.