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

Forums - Sales - Will the PS4 outsell the XBox One and WiiU?

AnthonyW86 on 05 May 2013
snowdog said:
Daisuke72 said:
Zero999 said:
Tachikoma said:
snowdog said:
Epic will bring tools and support for UE4 to the Wii U when publishers demand it, unless it's easier to port a title on UE4 for the PC lead SKU to UE3 for the Wii U SKU.

The Wii U should have an installed userbase around 8-10m+ before the end of the year, and like I've already mentioned publishers aren't going to leave that sort of money on the table now that there's a Nintendo console with a superior marketshare and a standard rendering pipeline. Unless of course they don't want to stay in business.


Really? tell me of these 3rd party publishers that have survived off of Nintendo game sales!, I'd love to know which of them aren't making 80%+ of their money off of the PS3 and 360.

P.s. once developers move to UE4 from UE3, the PS3 and 360 versions will stop appearing, and a direct result of that is the WiiU versions will stop too, leaving the WiiU with first and second party titles - If on the off chance someone DOES port UE4 (which i very much doubt for the reasons i've already outlined multiple times), it's not like theyre just going to give out their work to other third parties - earning money on a nintendo console as a third party is hard enough without giving away code you've spend hundreds of thousands to produce, to the competition.

ubisoft did. I don't think the amount of money 3rd party's make on ps360 are relevant to the case because we are talking about wii u having an install base that can't be ignored at a time like this. and no matter what you say, wii u can decently run anything developed with the future consoles in mind.

Right, which is why it can't even decently run Black Ops 2. 



And of course it's very sensible to judge the performance potential of any console on a port from a lead platform with completely different architecture that's rushed to make launch day, right..?

The most important 2 things that Nintendo have done is to get rid of the TEV Unit from Flipper and Hollywood, giving the console a standard rendering pipeline, and have chosen a similar architecture to the PS4 and 720. Porting between the Wii U/PS4/720 is going to be a great deal easier than porting between the Wii U/PS3/360.

I still think that Nintendo have included some sort of evolution of the TEV Unit or some other 'secret sauce' because there's over a third of the silicone from the die shot that's a complete mystery, and Nintendo were well aware of a ballpark figure that the specs of the PS4 and 720 were going to be. I think a great deal of people are going to be surprised when Nintendo release their AAA titles.

Like I've said before the proof is going to be in the proverbial pudding.

Yes they made some improvements, but they made just as many mistakes aswell. Nintendo is the only one sticking to the PowerPC architecture, wich will make porting more difficult. Also they used incredibly slow memory(the memory in the X360 is almost twice as fast), the PS4 will have a memory bandwidth of almost 15x as high. Also next gen will be all about sharing tasks between the gpu and cpu, Wii-U can't do that. If a game is released that is reliand on the GPU processing tasks like physics then the Wii-U can not run it.



Around the Network
snowdog on 05 May 2013

Latte is perfectly capable of processing tasks like physics, it's been confirmed to have GPGPU functionality. That's partly what Latte is for and partly why all 3 platform holders have opted for a similar architecture.

Double precision floating point work this gen isn't going to be done by the CPU the way it was last gen.

As for the RAM you'll find developers happier dealing with the DDR3 and ESRAM/eDRAM combination than GDDR5 due to the former having considerably less latency and leaving developers with less idle clock cycles. Latency always has been and always will be more important than bandwidth.

And porting really won't be a problem for reasons I've already given.



PSwii60 on 05 May 2013

Won't they need to? They'd need to offset some of the losses they'll make off of it



Zero999 on 05 May 2013
AnthonyW86 said:

Yes they made some improvements, but they made just as many mistakes aswell. Nintendo is the only one sticking to the PowerPC architecture, wich will make porting more difficult. Also they used incredibly slow memory(the memory in the X360 is almost twice as fast), the PS4 will have a memory bandwidth of almost 15x as high. Also next gen will be all about sharing tasks between the gpu and cpu, Wii-U can't do that. If a game is released that is reliand on the GPU processing tasks like physics then the Wii-U can not run it.

keep dreaming, maybe you'll get curé syndrome.



Daisuke72 on 05 May 2013
snowdog said:
Latte is perfectly capable of processing tasks like physics, it's been confirmed to have GPGPU functionality. That's partly what Latte is for and partly why all 3 platform holders have opted for a similar architecture.

Double precision floating point work this gen isn't going to be done by the CPU the way it was last gen.

As for the RAM you'll find developers happier dealing with the DDR3 and ESRAM/eDRAM combination than GDDR5 due to the former having considerably less latency and leaving developers with less idle clock cycles. Latency always has been and always will be more important than bandwidth.

And porting really won't be a problem for reasons I've already given.


Which explains why all the flaship gpu's use GDDR3 over GDDR5,  cause latency is more important right? Of course they don't, your argument is rather silly when it's proven that GDDR5 cards even with higher latency blow GDDR3 cards out of the water, which is why GDDR3 isn't used as a standard anymore.

 

I hate when fanboy's are so obssessed with a brand they begin to make things up and use non-logical arguments. No way in hell developer's will preffer 12/8GB  + eDRAM over 176/gb GDDR5 RAM even with the higher latency, the GDDR5 will perform better than the GDDR3 and that's all that matters, the extra performance.



Around the Network
snowdog on 05 May 2013

Developers will always prefer less latency. GDDR5 was a bit of an odd choice, particularly when it's shared with the system. It's pointless having a superior bandwidth when the CPU, GPU, OS take extra time to get the data needing to be processed. Despite the far superior bandwidth developers are more likely to encounter bottlenecks when developing for the PS4. Both Nintendo and Microsoft opted for their memory combinations for good reason.

Edit: And they're using DDR3, not GDDR3. The former has less latency than the latter, and the latter isn't being produced any more afaik.



Daisuke72 on 05 May 2013
snowdog said:

Developers will always prefer less latency. GDDR5 was a bit of an odd choice, particularly when it's shared with the system. It's pointless having a superior bandwidth when the CPU, GPU, OS take extra time to get the data needing to be processed. Despite the far superior bandwidth developers are more likely to encounter bottlenecks when developing for the PS4. Both Nintendo and Microsoft opted for their memory combinations for good reason.

Edit: And they're using DDR3, not GDDR3. The former has less latency than the latter, and the latter isn't being produced any more afaik.


.............

 

GDDR5 gives better performance despite the latency, meaning it's added power, and the latency difference between DDR3 and GDDR5 isn't that great, really it's a win win situation for Sony, better overall performance isn't a bottleneck at the cost of a slightly higher latency. Also, realize that the PS4's hardware coexists with one another better than the average PC enthusiasts build, as devs say. It has no bottlenecks.  Also, do

 

Edit: Also, do realize that higher latency only affects the CPU, and the CPU of the PS4 is better than the Wii U's from the looks of it, and with that being said, they can simply use the GPU to perform tasks when the CPU is hurt by the lower latency, thus negating said "bottleneck" which isn't really a bottleneck to begin with.



Zero999 on 05 May 2013
goopy20 said:
Zero999 said:
goopy20 said:
Zero999 said:
Tachikoma said:
snowdog said:
Epic will bring tools and support for UE4 to the Wii U when publishers demand it, unless it's easier to port a title on UE4 for the PC lead SKU to UE3 for the Wii U SKU.

The Wii U should have an installed userbase around 8-10m+ before the end of the year, and like I've already mentioned publishers aren't going to leave that sort of money on the table now that there's a Nintendo console with a superior marketshare and a standard rendering pipeline. Unless of course they don't want to stay in business.


Really? tell me of these 3rd party publishers that have survived off of Nintendo game sales!, I'd love to know which of them aren't making 80%+ of their money off of the PS3 and 360.

P.s. once developers move to UE4 from UE3, the PS3 and 360 versions will stop appearing, and a direct result of that is the WiiU versions will stop too, leaving the WiiU with first and second party titles - If on the off chance someone DOES port UE4 (which i very much doubt for the reasons i've already outlined multiple times), it's not like theyre just going to give out their work to other third parties - earning money on a nintendo console as a third party is hard enough without giving away code you've spend hundreds of thousands to produce, to the competition.

ubisoft did. I don't think the amount of money 3rd party's make on ps360 are relevant to the case because we are talking about wii u having an install base that can't be ignored at a time like this. and no matter what you say, wii u can decently run anything developed with the future consoles in mind.

Ubisoft did because they catered towards the Wii adience with Just Dance. They never bothered making a Assasins Creed for the Wii though because they knew it wouldn't be worth it even if the Wii had the biggest install base. You have to agree that no game, that sold big on the ps3/ 360, made a dent in Wii sales when they did a watered down port. 

With the Wii-U, developers will probably have learned their lesson. There is a market for Dance, party, fitness and platform games for 3rd party developers but we can already see that the Nintendo audience don't care for core games. Even Metroid didn't sell more then 1,6m copies on the Wii with a 70m install base and COD Black Ops 2 sold like 100k copies on the Wii-U (while Nintendo Land sold almost 2m). Black Ops 2 wasn't a watered down port and still didn't sell, so how is this going to get better when the new consoles come out that will make Wii-U ports look like SNES games in comparison? 

bolded 1:you are comparing something that can't even be considered a port (the wii version of multiplats) with future wii u ports that only graphic whores will see relevant differences.

bolded2: so far blops 2 shold be around 200k. that's already enough to profit and considering the 3M install base, future games will sell more.

bolded3: wii u vs ps4/nextbox versions will probably need a close look to notice any graphical difference unless haters develop curé syndrome anytime soon, but I wouldn't count on that.

The problem with ur logic is that you believe Wii-U ports from ps4/ Next box games will not show a relevant difference like we see today with the Wii ports. I guess you have to see with your own eyes before you believe otherwise, but even if the ports do look almost identical, then there still isn't really a market for core games on a Nintendo console. The biggest franchise, Black Ops 2, being outsold 10:1 by Nintendo Land should give you a idea.

nothing is going to have a relevant difference, graphics got stagnant to the point we'll never see a big difference from previous generations.

the sales in relation to another game is irrelevant. the sales themselves are what matter and blops sold enough to profit from the port, ON A CONSOLE WITH 3M INSTALL BASE.

you're just one of many who don't like nintendo and want it to fail, just say it out loud instead of making excuses.



Max King of the Wild on 05 May 2013
Zero999 said:
goopy20 said:
Zero999 said:
goopy20 said:
Zero999 said:
Tachikoma said:
.

.

 

 

.

 

nothing is going to have a relevant difference, graphics got stagnant to the point we'll never see a big difference from previous generations.

the sales in relation to another game is irrelevant. the sales themselves are what matter and blops sold enough to profit from the port, ON A CONSOLE WITH 3M INSTALL BASE.

you're just one of many who don't like nintendo and want it to fail, just say it out loud instead of making excuses.

Your assumptions that anyone who says anything remotely negative about nintendo are just haters wanting them to fail just need to stop. It really makes you look silly and more than anything paints you with blind loyalty



Zero999 on 06 May 2013
Max King of the Wild said:

Your assumptions that anyone who says anything remotely negative about nintendo are just haters wanting them to fail just need to stop. It really makes you look silly and more than anything paints you with blind loyalty

your assumptions that everything even remotely related to nintendo is going to fail needs to stop. it really make you look silly and more than anything paints you with blind haterism.