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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 720 will Decide if WiiU RAM is enough.

twilight_link on 17 April 2013

"720 will Decide if WiiU RAM is enough." NO!!! Only Nintendo decide if WiiU RAM is enough and nobody else.
The truth is Nintendo doesn't need 3rd party support, this kind of support is actually pretty dangerous thing, because they can extort you every time they wish and if you did for some reason something they disliked or more cool brand appears on the horizon, then you and your fanbase is gone, this is hard lesson bitterly learned by Nintendo and lesson that murdered Sega as platform holder.

So Nintendo success or failure depends only on their 1st party and selected 2nd party output and nothing else, to complicated thing even more, no one need 3rd platform with almost identical content.

The technological gap between WiiU and its competitors is only bad excuse, Wii was perfectly capable to running games from 6th generation but they hardly ported anything their excuse in case of Game Cube was small capacity of media this was non existent problem on Wii although some games were ported and performed rather well on the market.

Similar with WiiU this platform is perfectly capable to working with games from ps360 but the platform hardly get them they get ports of 2 years old game instead of new game as Tomb Raider although the publisher bleed money on this and port cost almost nothing.

They just hate Nintendo because Nintendo is the only platform holder in the entire industry whose success in no way depends on their good will, they are practically creators or gravedigger of platforms and Nintendo is the only exception, no wonder they try, with funny analysts, exceptional journalists, creative excuses etc.

3DS is next success story without any proper western 3rd party support, certainly not DS level of success but sign of how powerful the brand actually is.



Around the Network
DevilRising on 17 April 2013

People seriously need to quit talking about this nonsense. Great games are great games. Many great games will be ported to Wii U. The other systems don't determine whether or not Wii U succeeds, any more than Wii U determines if they succeed.



twilight_link on 17 April 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
DirtyP2002 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
happydolphin said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Actually Nintendo didn't allow third parties room to breathe and be themselves and thats how they ran the NES/SNES era. When Sony arrived they did what Sega couldnt and gave third parties and alternative that will make their own great games and allow third parties to fly. This is why they flocked to Sony for the format perks. Since then its been a beautiful relationship, hands down Sony and Microsoft deal with third party in a fair manner compared to Nintendo. Nintendo expects third parties to drop their aspirations to suit their weak console specs. That wont fly if the market is growing and has money to spend. This new gen will start off a little slower than normal but third parties now have a backbone because of companies like Sony and Microsoft.

It's also beautiful that Sony is making its way to bankruptcy. In other words, it's beautiful for 3rd parties but I don't believe in the business model (loss-leading, buying out 3rd parites).

Sorry.


 


Keep talking about Sonys business model when we know its their outer gaming region that is the true loss leader. Sony has taken risks with consoles because they know they'll reap the rewards later and they have. The Vita is their only true flaw that is taking a while to pick up. The Move of all the last gen peripherals was the best...but had no games to show how truly precise it was compared to the competition.

The PS4 will be more affordable to put together and sell than the PS3 if you listened to what Sony said at the unveiling. It worked out best in everyones favor...words Nintendo fails to understand. Theres no everyone with them when it comes to development planning.

not sure if serious...

I am. Sonys cause for massive losses is outside of the gaming arena. They are currently profiting off of the PS3.

Sony lost billions of dollars on PS3, this platform is not profitable, the platform is drowning in red ink, if Nintendo jumped on the HD bandwagon at the dawn of 7th generation to compete with hd twins they were now literary bankrupt or at verge of bankruptcy, I'm sure you and your hardcore brethren would have liked this, but it didn't happened. Your series of posts is horrible slide of pure nonsense and unsupported claims.



FuelledByHatred on 17 April 2013
Captain_Tom said:
FuelledByHatred said:
Captain_Tom said:
FuelledByHatred said:

Nobody on here seems to have considered one thing that could be very important to how games scale. Native Resolution.

NextBox and PS4 are targeting 1080p as native resolution for all games, where as Wii U is targeting 720p Native for it's games.  It is entirely plausible that ports of PS4/Xbox games will be able to run on the Wii U's more modest hardware because games will be less resource intensive when running at lower resolutions, with either more compressed or lower res textures needing significantly less RAM.  It is afterall how most PC games are actually scaled.

My laptop is a perfect example. It is nowhere near the performance of say a high end gaming PC, it has a 1.5Ghz Quadcore AMD, an HD7670M and yes, admittedly 8GB of RAM, however; even when running games i've never used more than 3 GB and that is with a bloated Windows OS running.  I cannot hope to run games at max settings @ 1080p. Witcher 2 for example i get about 12FPS, but if i drop the settings to medium and the resolution to 1366x768p @ 30FPS i get something that looks inferior to max settings but is still a gorgeous looking game to play.  A game that at those settings (and even on low) still looks much better than the Xbox 360 version, running on a laptop whose specs are close to what is inside the Wii U.  In fact in a closed console environment the Wii U probably out performs my laptop games-wise.

So my question is if PC developers can scale games across such a huge divide in technological capabilities then why can't they for the "Next Gen" consoles?

Here are the specs for Metro Last Light http://www.destructoid.com/optimum-metro-last-light-specs-recommend-an-nvidia-titan-251890.phtml Now if 4A can scale across such a massive technological chasm then surely it is not asking too much for scaled ports on Wii U, yes they will be graphically "inferior" but not to the degree that people probably think and it will certainly not be a Wii vs PS3 situation this time round.  On paper the PS4 and Xbox will be 2-3x more powerful than Wii U, yes, but people don't seem to realise that the law of diminshing returns has kicked in for games developers, meaning that 2-3x on paper will not be 2-3x in practice because 1; large increases in computational power are only producing small visual gains and 2; devs (outside of those SONY or MS  funded) are quickly finding that they cannot be profitable with the amount of time, effort and money it takes to make games that will push PS4 and NextBox to the limits.  It gets to the point where things become so detailed that it takes too much time and you would be looking at Disney Pixar sized budgets, which EA and Square-Enix are finding simply not feasible.   

But we won't have to wait long really to begin seeing how things shape up.  The release of Watch Dogs on PS4 and Wii U will be a good barometer as to whether the gap between the two is as big as some are saying.  The ultimate comparison will be when Retro's new game (Metroid) is compared with something like KZ Shadowfall.  Only then will we see just how big this gap will be.

The thing is, you fail to realize is that the Wii U's GPU is less than half the strength of the minimum one, and the PS4's is about on par with the recomended.  In addition to that, 4A games said the Wii U's too slow to handle the game lol.  It's like you are trying to prove yourself wrong!

Not at all i used Metro Last Light as an example of how games can scale across a massive range of technologies not what can be scaled specifically to Wii U. I assume you can read? My actual example of how games may run was more my laptop specs which FYI can run Metro at about 25-35 FPS on mid settings and i as previously stated is less capable than a Wii U in terms of graphical output due to the closed nature and less resource sapping console environment, but I saw it as a good comparison because working on calculations to work out TFlops and taking into account greater access to resources in a console, i thought it work as a close enough match.

Secondly saying that the Wii U GPU is less than half the strength of a GTS 250 is pretty bogus claim. In a PC SETUP it would be 3/4 the power of a GTS 250, yes, but in a closed console environment it's an apples to oranges comparison, especially when you're comparing off the shelf components to heavily modified custom components. It's like saying an Xbox 360 shouldn't be able to run The Witcher 2 because it's GPU falls below the PC minimum spec.  It is a ridculous things to say.  My post was in fact more about trying to get across how far games are able to be scaled.  I was not trying to go into the nuts and bolts of specs and directly comparing them.  What you don't seem to realise is that comparing off the shelf parts used in a console to the same off the shelf parts used in a PC is utterly pointless, the level of performance that can be gleaned from a piece of silicon in a console is far greater than that of it's PC equivalent. 

Thirdly the point i was actually trying to make was that people so far have not taken into account at all what effect games being run at 1080p not 720p on GPU tech that, yes is a lot better than old tech but isn't light years ahead, especially compared to the same games running at 720p on Wii U hardware. (On a side note, It would not surprise me at all if you see resolutions slip below the 1080p standard the longer the "next" generation goes on as consoles struggle to keep up with the advances in PC hardware and rendering techniques.)

As for what 4A said if you truely believe that statement then fair enough, but please don't try and use it in this argument when that comment was actually made about the CPU NOT the GPU.  Which in itself probably says more about their unwillingness or inability to optimise code than it does about Wii U hardware. 4A's Metro Engine is widely acknowledged as being one of the least optimised engines out there. 

I was also trying to put across the point that Wii U (being 1.5-2x the power of a 360, GPU-wise) will be probably be able to run scaled down 720p ports of 1080p PS4 games but with a decrease in resolution and in the quality of things like lighting, alpha effects, particle effects, shadow mapping and AA.  They would be by no means "ugly" games but wouldn't be up to the quality of PS4 titles. It would be possible, but whether developers have the time, interest, expertise or potential financial gains, remains to be seen.

One last thing, I'm not trying to get into some kind of mud slinging match but i would like to ask that next time you decide to slap someone down and belittle their post, you make sure you actually understand what that person is trying to say.  Try and back up your counter argument with something a little more than a put down, unsubstantiated  "facts" and a misquote that is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion or point someone has made or trying to make.


LOL where do I start:

1) My claim in performance is not "bogus."  The Wii U basically has a cut down 6570 with DDR3, that IS half the strength of a GTS 250 at least.  

2) If the Wii U gets "Optimized" performance gains, than so does the GPU in the PS4 making the gap just as wide and your point irrelevent.  

3)No matter how you dice it, EA, 4A, Deep Silver, and other developers and publishers don't think the Wii U's weak specs is worth their time.  Whether its because they are "Lazy," or the Wii U is a console built by drunks is up for debate, but the end result is NO GAMES.

4) I understand what you are saying and it is: ill-informed, naive, and lacks support.  


It's all about scaling, Wii U equates to a low end PC in those terms and PS4 a high mid range, games should still be scale-able. At this moment in time 3rd party support has nothing to do with lack of performance, it is to do with lack of install base and the belief that people who buy Nintendo consoles are only interested in Nintendo games.  Out of those you publishers you mentioned only 4A has been negative regarding the hardware. EA fell out with Nintendo over net code and Origin and Deep Silver saw no commercial viability at this moment in time, which is fair.

As for being ill informed  http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=Radeon+HD+6570   &   http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTS+250 not a huge gap.  Besides which you reference the Wii U GPU as a cut down 6570 when it really isn't and can't really be compared when it has been heavily customised and has a lot of unknowns on the GPU die when compared with off the shelf parts. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511628  Your reasoning that it is a 6570 is just a guess really as many have speculated what is in there but no one really knows because many of the specs and functions seem to be an amalgamation of a number of slightly older midrange AMD GPU's.

As for talking about Wii U optimisations again at that point i was talking in comparison to a PC of similar spec not PS4, so again you failed to read what i was saying properly or chose to interupt it in a way that makes your comments more valid.

You clearly are some who just dislikes the Wii U and no matter what arguement is put to you, you will find a way to piss on a view that does not match your own.  As i said earlier we will see when the cross platform titles appear and compare first party titles.  When all is said and done i stick by my belief that the gap will be nothing like you believe it will be, especially for the first 2-3 years these consoles are on the market and by that time Nintendo will be around 1-2 years from a new console as i only see a 5 year lifespan for the Wii U. Throughout all of this you have also dodged any reference made to respective performance regarding resolutions, i can only assume you see this as irelevant for reasons unknown.  Maybe because PS4 performance may not be all you believe it to be, KZ Shadowfall ran 1080p at only 30fps and while looking impressive was nothing mind blowing.  I was more impressed with Crysis 3 maxed if i'm honest. Surely if this machine is as good as you believe it to be then are they locking framerate at only 30?  

CPU in my laptop is a Llano A6.

Finally on a different but relevant note.  This gen won't be won on graphics, we have already reached the point where the average user on the street can't really see that much of a difference.  This gen will be won on games and the gaming experience.  Sony will win and Nintendo will be a lot gamers second console unless Microsoft pulls out some exclusives from somewhere. I certainly won't be buying an all in one TV/Media/Kinect box. Wii U for Nintendo 1st party and exclusive, different, innovative 3rd party and indie games (you probably have noticed AAA devs are failing and Nintendo is hoovering up a massive amount of Indie support in case of a likely crash, as is Sony.) PS4 for exclusives and again Indies & 3rd party AAA's. Xbox will still sell but nowhere near as well as this gen, there is only so many times you can play Gears, Forza and Halo. In ten years time i can well see Nintendo being the only console maker around if MS continues to place it's faith in media and continues to lose money (on Xbox). Sony could well fold if PS4 doesn't sell, they simply do not have the money anymore.  You will probably say  Nintendo will be the first to go, but be serious they are sitting on $10billion in cash and run their business as a business carving out their niche and making PROFIT. Not chasing some loss led dream to be the only box in the living room.  Jesus MS have even forgot how to make a good PC OS because they are so obsessed with jumping on the latest tech bandwagon. MAC is eating into their PC dominance by being sensible and keeping an OS for computers and an OS for touch devices, not combining them into the hideous mess that is Windows 8 (This is from someone who doesn't really like or own Apple devices).  If that business decision is anything to go by then MS could well be doomed in the console market too.  Every decision they have made in the last 2-5 years has pretty much failed, Windows Phone, Zune, Windows Surface, Windows 8 all failing to live up to expectations or failing completely. Even Xbox Live is a fucking mess to find anything these days, the second re design (3rd iteration) killed it. They should roll back to the previous dash. This one  http://bumped.org/tek/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/xbox-live-new-dashboard.jpg   Not as attractive but at least you could find what you wanted without having to hunt for it. 



S.T.A.G.E. on 18 April 2013
twilight_link said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
DirtyP2002 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
happydolphin said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Actually Nintendo didn't allow third parties room to breathe and be themselves and thats how they ran the NES/SNES era. When Sony arrived they did what Sega couldnt and gave third parties and alternative that will make their own great games and allow third parties to fly. This is why they flocked to Sony for the format perks. Since then its been a beautiful relationship, hands down Sony and Microsoft deal with third party in a fair manner compared to Nintendo. Nintendo expects third parties to drop their aspirations to suit their weak console specs. That wont fly if the market is growing and has money to spend. This new gen will start off a little slower than normal but third parties now have a backbone because of companies like Sony and Microsoft.

It's also beautiful that Sony is making its way to bankruptcy. In other words, it's beautiful for 3rd parties but I don't believe in the business model (loss-leading, buying out 3rd parites).

Sorry.


 


Keep talking about Sonys business model when we know its their outer gaming region that is the true loss leader. Sony has taken risks with consoles because they know they'll reap the rewards later and they have. The Vita is their only true flaw that is taking a while to pick up. The Move of all the last gen peripherals was the best...but had no games to show how truly precise it was compared to the competition.

The PS4 will be more affordable to put together and sell than the PS3 if you listened to what Sony said at the unveiling. It worked out best in everyones favor...words Nintendo fails to understand. Theres no everyone with them when it comes to development planning.

not sure if serious...

I am. Sonys cause for massive losses is outside of the gaming arena. They are currently profiting off of the PS3.

Sony lost billions of dollars on PS3, this platform is not profitable, the platform is drowning in red ink, if Nintendo jumped on the HD bandwagon at the dawn of 7th generation to compete with hd twins they were now literary bankrupt or at verge of bankruptcy, I'm sure you and your hardcore brethren would have liked this, but it didn't happened. Your series of posts is horrible slide of pure nonsense and unsupported claims.


The PS3 has been in the profit zone since 2010. 



Around the Network
Mazty on 18 April 2013
happydolphin said:
Mazty said:

Right so because the PS1 was better than the SNES, that means we didn't need the PS2 or 3....

The post-Sony conference hype shows that graphics are appealing to many gamers, somthing devs recognise is important to gaming as a whole. 

"In your eyes"....eyes that have never seen cutting edge graphics. Come back when you literally aren't, and I mean this again in the literal sense, so ignorant on the topic. The issue is you are trying to criticise something you have never, ever seen. Ignorance is not an argument. 

If I, having been a gamer since my young age, having been on gaming forums and exposed to threads that compare graphics, if I can't get it, do you expect the masses to?

If I'm ignorant on the matter, then I am just guessing that the market is not much more informed than I am, so sorry.

@bold. Again, diminishing returns. Back then the jump made a big difference. Not as much today, despite all you guys have said this far the differences between games like TLoU and the Killzone demo will only be truly visible to those who know the differences thanks to theory on 3D grahpics, or who are looking at excrutiating detail.

Let's not get ad hominem.

Yes I do because they do. Did you not see the people who enjoyed the PS4 demos? Graphics are the new in-thing. I've been gaming for years and I get it, but I can afford to keep up with it and have been exposed to it whereas you are arguing from a point of complete ignorance. 

Come back when you have actually experienced cutting edge graphics. And no, you simply are relectuant to spend cash on graphics. Others are not and happily will pay for prettier games. 
"Those that know the difference" - you mean those with eyes? If you can't see the difference clearly then I honestly advise you to see an optician asap. Or stop bullshitting. We are accustomed as humans to recognise what is real and what isn't, ergo everyone will notice when things don't look real, and the 7th gen is miles away from being photorealistic. Therefore improvements will be noticed by everyone. I will pt it down to financial reasons why you are being stubborn on this topic. 



happydolphin on 18 April 2013
Captain_Tom said:
FuelledByHatred said:

LOL where do I start:

1) My claim in performance is not "bogus."  The Wii U basically has a cut down 6570 with DDR3, that IS half the strength of a GTS 250 at least.  

2) If the Wii U gets "Optimized" performance gains, than so does the GPU in the PS4 making the gap just as wide and your point irrelevent.  

3)No matter how you dice it, EA, 4A, Deep Silver, and other developers and publishers don't think the Wii U's weak specs is worth their time.  Whether its because they are "Lazy," or the Wii U is a console built by drunks is up for debate, but the end result is NO GAMES.

4) I understand what you are saying and it is: ill-informed, naive, and lacks support.  

@bold. The debate in this thread is "can it be done or not", not "would they do it or not". In other words, if someone says that they just don't want to do it because they're lazy, then it's because they've conceded the technical argument and the U side wins the debate. Period.

@4. I don't like how you post. I think his post was informed, reasonable and supported itself. You really do play the mudslinging game and it's unwarranted.



happydolphin on 18 April 2013
Mazty said:

Yes I do because they do. Did you not see the people who enjoyed the PS4 demos? Graphics are the new in-thing. I've been gaming for years and I get it, but I can afford to keep up with it and have been exposed to it whereas you are arguing from a point of complete ignorance. 

Come back when you have actually experienced cutting edge graphics. And no, you simply are relectuant to spend cash on graphics. Others are not and happily will pay for prettier games. 
"Those that know the difference" - you mean those with eyes? If you can't see the difference clearly then I honestly advise you to see an optician asap. Or stop bullshitting. We are accustomed as humans to recognise what is real and what isn't, ergo everyone will notice when things don't look real, and the 7th gen is miles away from being photorealistic. Therefore improvements will be noticed by everyone. I will pt it down to financial reasons why you are being stubborn on this topic. 

You're really being rude and not reading my posts. I _have_ watched the PS4 demos, I have watched the UE demos, I have watched the Lumina demo, and I _have_ seen some more cutting edge PC footage on youtube and on my roomie's PC. What you don't seem to understand is that I know the difference, like I replied to S.T.A.G.E., but I don't believe that that difference makes the game unplayable, like it did for Wii ports like COD, where things were blotchy and not in a proper resolution for a modern shooting game.

So I'm maybe not as familiar as you are, but I'm definintely not ignorant and I am upset at you for pushing that idea despite what I've posted this far about my exposure to the topic.



Mazty on 18 April 2013
happydolphin said:
Mazty said:

Yes I do because they do. Did you not see the people who enjoyed the PS4 demos? Graphics are the new in-thing. I've been gaming for years and I get it, but I can afford to keep up with it and have been exposed to it whereas you are arguing from a point of complete ignorance. 

Come back when you have actually experienced cutting edge graphics. And no, you simply are relectuant to spend cash on graphics. Others are not and happily will pay for prettier games. 
"Those that know the difference" - you mean those with eyes? If you can't see the difference clearly then I honestly advise you to see an optician asap. Or stop bullshitting. We are accustomed as humans to recognise what is real and what isn't, ergo everyone will notice when things don't look real, and the 7th gen is miles away from being photorealistic. Therefore improvements will be noticed by everyone. I will pt it down to financial reasons why you are being stubborn on this topic. 

You're really being rude and not reading my posts. I _have_ watched the PS4 demos, I have watched the UE demos, I have watched the Lumina demo, and I _have_ seen some more cutting edge PC footage on youtube and on my roomie's PC. What you don't seem to understand is that I know the difference, like I replied to S.T.A.G.E., but I don't believe that that difference makes the game unplayable, like it did for Wii ports like COD, where things were blotchy and not in a proper resolution for a modern shooting game.

So I'm maybe not as familiar as you are, but I'm definintely not ignorant and I am upset at you for pushing that idea despite what I've posted this far about my exposure to the topic.


You've admitted to having never seen state of the art graphics so that does make you ignorant with regard to graphics, more so when you claim you can't see the point in them, the point in something you've never seen. 

No one said the games are unplayable...Thats rediculous. However the downscaling of something for the PS4 would be so time intensive, and require such a cut back in system specs, it wouldn't be worth it and the end product would be too different from the original. 

You've admitted you've never seen state of the art graphics - this does make you ignorant on the topic. Fact. Don't be upset at me, be upset at the dictionary. 



happydolphin on 18 April 2013
Mazty said:
happydolphin said:

You're really being rude and not reading my posts. I _have_ watched the PS4 demos, I have watched the UE demos, I have watched the Lumina demo, and I _have_ seen some more cutting edge PC footage on youtube and on my roomie's PC. What you don't seem to understand is that I know the difference, like I replied to S.T.A.G.E., but I don't believe that that difference makes the game unplayable, like it did for Wii ports like COD, where things were blotchy and not in a proper resolution for a modern shooting game.

So I'm maybe not as familiar as you are, but I'm definintely not ignorant and I am upset at you for pushing that idea despite what I've posted this far about my exposure to the topic.


You've admitted to having never seen state of the art graphics so that does make you ignorant with regard to graphics, more so when you claim you can't see the point in them, the point in something you've never seen. 

No one said the games are unplayable...Thats rediculous. However the downscaling of something for the PS4 would be so time intensive, and require such a cut back in system specs, it wouldn't be worth it and the end product would be too different from the original. 

You've admitted you've never seen state of the art graphics - this does make you ignorant on the topic. Fact. Don't be upset at me, be upset at the dictionary. 

I've never seen them off of youtube, on a 1080 display. But I've seen them on youtube, with all the effects. I've seen them on pictures, etc. etc.

@bold. That's because you aren't reading the thread. And it drives me up the wall. Yes people have said that things will be done on the PS4 that just can't be done on WiiU (in other words the game couldn't be made with gen 7 tech), and I said the only case where that is correct is the David Cage stuff (due to 1 to 1 human emotion attempt). Everything else is downscalable. And  you are speculating to say it would be too different from the original, when we've given many cases where downscaling has kept games playable (Witcher 2 PC versus xbox, Crysis 3 max settings versus low settings, etc.). How do you not know this if you're the one with the high-end PC?

I'm upset at you because you're just hanging on to words and not to the nuances in the meanings (because you don't want to understand, you just want to call me ignorant). I said I SAW the tech demos on youtube, I saw some high-end PC footage on youtube. Only diff is you saw it on a proper build, on a 1080P display, that's the only diff.

Also, even with the "knowledge" that I have, and I do have some at this point, I'm just no expert, I can tell you that if the difference is not so incredibly major to me, it will not be to the general public. There are some differences I simply don't see, then there are some I see. The same tech demo, someone will notice something I didn't. It doesn't make me as ignorant as it makes me normal. And guess who the mainstream is? Yep, you got it... normal people.