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

Forums - Gaming - What is the future of videogaming if the Wii U wins this upcoming generation?

Mazty on 03 February 2013
Gnac said:
Mazty said:
richardhutnik said:

There is talk about a need for a tech refresh, more horsepower and greater graphical capability.  Developers have screamed they need 8 GB ram to do what they want.

But,what happens in the end if, despite the next Playstation and Microsoft consoles coming out with mega horsepower, the relatively underpowered WiiU, which just managed to bump up the current gen by economical margins wins out?  What if Microsoft and Sony don't win and bleed a lot of ink and people actually go for the Wii U?  In short, the screams for the 8GB of RAM that was demanded aren't what sells?

What happens if people are ok with marginal upgrade to what is today, but with a new screen and other tweaks?  Or say that none of the above does well enough and say that iOS and Android stuff (sub $20 a piece) ends up being what sells?

What do you see the future holding if mass spike in horsepower doesn't pay for itself?


If the Wii U wins, expect gamers to be left in the dust and casuals to take over as the latter do not care about tech. If the Wii U wins, I can't see myself enjoying many future games.

But you're a PC gamer!

Or are you actually just TSUNDERE FOR CONSOLES?

Consoles, for now, rule the game market as they are so easy to use. Because of this, consoles will generally dictate the direction of games as there is more profit to be found in consoles than PC (with a few exceptions). Therefore if games go casual, it's likely that less core games will be developed. That'd suck imo. 

Plus for local play PCs are naff-tastic. A decent console is always nice to have floating around for social times...



Around the Network
Hynad on 03 February 2013
teigaga said:
Nem said:
Hynad said:
Nem said:
Err... the same as always?

We're yet to see how much of a difference it will be, but if X is anything to go by, it wont be a huge difference. So it wont make a huge difference who wins. The following gen will be a step up regardless.
Its getting dumb how people seem to be convinced that the Wii U is current gen. Really, it isnt. Its next gen. X was the proof right there.


X, while looking quite awesome, doesn't scream next gen at all, visually. It does seem better than any JRPGs released on the HD twins (which isn't telling much, since we barely had any AAA releases from that genre this gen), but not really by a big margin.  But, you know, games on the PS360 still look great. So I don't see what the problem really is if people don't think it looks next gen. 

I'm not saying the Wii isn't capable of delivering much better visuals than the PS360. Just that using what we have seen of X as an example that the Wii U is clearly a gen above the PS360 is kind of strange to me. 


I really dont know what you're playing at. The only other thing at the same level as X is Star wars 1313. Both are next gen titles. That is what next gen looks like. I swear people dont understand what next-gen is going to be and are in for a rude wake up. Then again maybe it just needs to be shown by their favorite company for them to recognise it?

Next gen is going to use graphic cards far below the best ones we find on PC's today. Next gen has been on the PC for a while. I swear i dont understand. Theres not gonna be any jump like HD or 2D to 3D. What you see on X is next-gen. And it is miles ahead what current gen offers in terms of texture detail, fps and ammount of things on screen aswell as particle effects and animation. Thats what next gen is gonna be, dont fool yourself.

I know this is not what you said, but it just made me go on a rant mode.

Lets wait for the 20th before we start concluding what 720/ps4 games will look like. I do think star wars 1313 is a good few notches above X


What I don't understand is how you can say any of this when talking about X based on what was shown of it so far.  I see a JRPG that really looks awesome, but I don't see this next gen stuff you're trying to talk about.

As for what you say about the other next gen consoles, well as far as I know, they haven't been revealed, so maybe you should tone down the "predictions as fact" a little.



Kaizar on 03 February 2013
richardhutnik said:

There is talk about a need for a tech refresh, more horsepower and greater graphical capability.  Developers have screamed they need 8 GB ram to do what they want.

But,what happens in the end if, despite the next Playstation and Microsoft consoles coming out with mega horsepower, the relatively underpowered WiiU, which just managed to bump up the current gen by economical margins wins out?  What if Microsoft and Sony don't win and bleed a lot of ink and people actually go for the Wii U?  In short, the screams for the 8GB of RAM that was demanded aren't what sells?

What happens if people are ok with marginal upgrade to what is today, but with a new screen and other tweaks?  Or say that none of the above does well enough and say that iOS and Android stuff (sub $20 a piece) ends up being what sells?

What do you see the future holding if mass spike in horsepower doesn't pay for itself?


For the 8th Gen Home Consoles it will mean: "Single Player Asymetrical Gaming" FTW!

For video games in general, it will mean that you also have to have the most interactive System besides just increasing graphics with each new console from the same company.

 

But we were already on this path of WiiMotes & GamePads after going thru:

NES to SNES to N64 to GC

Sega Master System to Sega Genesis to Sega Saturn & Sega Dreamcast

 

So it was only a matter of time until someone made video games much more interactive then the same old classic controller.

But I can see why Noobs in video gaming would be complaining, because they are New to Gaming these past up to 10 years sadly.



the2real4mafol on 03 February 2013

Nothing will change, if it happens to win.



Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030

archbrix on 03 February 2013
Sensei said:
Thinking of Sega Genesis x Super NES, the Sega Genesis was inferior but it had a faster CPU, which allowed fast games like Sonic to give it an edge, or games to allow lots of stuff at once in the screen (coop beat em ups like Streets of Rage). The weakness in CPU of Super NES allowed Sega Genesis to do well in USA.

 

The Genesis' faster CPU wasn't what allowed the console to do well against the SNES in the US. The Sega Genesis had a full two year headstart on the market, had good brand recognition, and amassed a strong library of titles before the SNES arrived, to say nothing of the Sega Sports line which did well for the Genesis.

Heck, painting Nintendo as the more "kiddy" console did more for Sega than the "blast processing" commercials did.



Around the Network
gatito on 03 February 2013

Cause dooming a single console isn't enough...let's doom the entire industry!



curl-6 on 03 February 2013
pokoko said:
Well, I suppose the first difference would be that creating new controllers and interfaces every gen would be the new standard, which I think would suck. I like traditional gaming where the focus is on the games themselves, not on new control schemes.

I'm the opposite; if the controller stays the same it doesn't really feel like a new generation to me. That's why the Wii felt more next gen than the PS360 for me; motion controls were much more new and exciting to me than prettier visuals.



TheBardsSong on 03 February 2013

To add to what the dude earlier said about weaker consoles winning each gen:

Atari 2600 - Weaker than many later competitors and outlived them
NES - weaker than the Master System
SNES - the exception, though CPU-wise it was outclassed by the Genesis and the Neo Geo was still the most powerful console at the time

There's yet to be a payoff for chasing the most advanced hardware.



VGKing on 03 February 2013

What you don't understand is that the power of these consoles will provide more than just better graphics. It will provide better apps, faster everything, multi-tasking and hopefully free to play titles such as MMOs.

There is no way the Wii U will lead this generation.(I'm basing this off current sales figures)



fordy on 03 February 2013
Soundwave said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
PS1 - weakest console
PS2 - weakest console
Wii - weakest console

Can you tell me what they all have in common besides what was stated above?

If I was a betting man I'd say regardless of what is happening now, in 5 years the Wii U will be added to that list and the industry will be perfectly fine.


Not really PS1 was a good deal more powerful than the Sega Saturn, esoecially in 3D capability.

PS2 was a good deal more powerful than the Dreamcast and absolutely destroyed the best PC GPU of its time, yes GameCube and XBox were better but also released like 18-20 months later. Both the PS1 and PS2 were pretty cutting edge for 1995 and 2000 releases.

Wii is the exception, but the PS3 might still overtake it.

The system with a good amount of power (not neccessarily the highest, but still relatively cutting edge) + good 3rd party support tends to win each generation.

The GameCube and XBox would've slaughtered the PS2 if the PS2 was just an overclocked PSOne with an Eye Toy bundled with it. The Wii really was a big exception to the rule, but they also got a huge break with Sony being stupid enough to make a $600 PS3 to push Blu-Ray. That slowed the adoption of HD consoles tremendously early on.

If by "totally destroyed"you mean "became it's bitch", then yes, it did:

http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-2-PSOne/PS2-vs-GeForce-2-GTS-graphics/td-p/952732

GeForce2 GTS absolutely hammered the PS2 GPU. (By the way, the Pixels/second is the one you need to be looking for, since polygons/second relies on screen resolution, which PS2 works on an incredibly LOW resolution).

Should also be noted that the PS2 GPU also had to do CPU duties with it's clock cycles, while the PC GPU was merely a co-processor...

You really should research these things before blatantly spouting bullshit.