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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Would you be OK with Nintendo killing the Wii U so early?

 

Are you ok with killing the Wii U so early?

Yes 320 53.60%
 
No 277 46.40%
 
Total:597
midrange on 12 January 2016
Thunderbird77 said:
midrange said:

Are you kidding me? it happens all the time. People look at games like xenoblade x and bayonetta 2, wanting them to be on other platforms where they are not limited by hardware.

If releasing a powerful console earlier means killing off the wii u, I say go for it. Then Nintendo can have a platform where games aren't limited to last gen specs.

If those games were on other platforms, the major difference would be resolution, not much more than that. I don't know about your wii u, but the one nintendo sells doesn't have last gen specs.

It has specs comparable to last gen. The gpu and cpu are slightly better than the 360 and ps3, but they are much much weaker than the ps4/xbox one specs.

Likewise, resolution isn't the only thing that would be improved. Frame rate, size, and objects on screen would all be improved making for much better gameplay. That and games are no longer limited by weak hardware and can port over to the wii u without extravagant costs (like project cars)





Around the Network
Thunderbird77 on 12 January 2016
midrange said:
Thunderbird77 said:

If those games were on other platforms, the major difference would be resolution, not much more than that. I don't know about your wii u, but the one nintendo sells doesn't have last gen specs.

It has specs comparable to last gen. The gpu and cpu are slightly better than the 360 and ps3, but they are much much weaker than the ps4/xbox one specs.

Likewise, resolution isn't the only thing that would be improved. Frame rate, size, and objects on screen would all be improved making for much better gameplay. That and games are no longer limited by weak hardware and can port over to the wii u without extravagant costs (like project cars)

No the gpu and cpu aren't just slightly better than x360. And even ps4 /x1 don't have a better cpu than ps3 cell.

If you actually read my post, you'll see that resolution is the only major difference. Other aspects would change too little but framerate is not one of them, since nintendo chooses to have most games at 60fps already.





midrange on 12 January 2016
Thunderbird77 said:
midrange said:

It has specs comparable to last gen. The gpu and cpu are slightly better than the 360 and ps3, but they are much much weaker than the ps4/xbox one specs.

Likewise, resolution isn't the only thing that would be improved. Frame rate, size, and objects on screen would all be improved making for much better gameplay. That and games are no longer limited by weak hardware and can port over to the wii u without extravagant costs (like project cars)

No the gpu and cpu aren't just slightly better than x360. And even ps4 /x1 don't have a better cpu than ps3 cell.

If you actually read my post, you'll see that resolution is the only major difference. Other aspects would change too little but framerate is not one of them, since nintendo chooses to have most games at 60fps already.

Lets assume that the wii u does not have specs comparable to last gen, that doesn't detract from the fact that the wii u is significantly weaker than the ps4/xbox one, whereas the NX would be comparable to them if not better. Why would devs want to make games on the wii u (custom architecture, weaker hardware) over the NX?

Killing the wii u and releasing the NX faster gets devs on board with better tools to make better games.

Framerate is definitely big. Playing mario kart 8 at 60 fps with more than 2 people would be great. Playing xenoblade X at 60 fps would be phenomenal. Same for third party games.

Its up to devs to decide if the only change the make is resolution. However, giving devs more power opens up the possibilities that they can create (like no mans sky on ps4).





Thunderbird77 on 12 January 2016
midrange said:
Thunderbird77 said:

No the gpu and cpu aren't just slightly better than x360. And even ps4 /x1 don't have a better cpu than ps3 cell.

If you actually read my post, you'll see that resolution is the only major difference. Other aspects would change too little but framerate is not one of them, since nintendo chooses to have most games at 60fps already.

Lets assume that the wii u does not have specs comparable to last gen, that doesn't detract from the fact that the wii u is significantly weaker than the ps4/xbox one, whereas the NX would be comparable to them if not better. Why would devs want to make games on the wii u (custom architecture, weaker hardware) over the NX?

Killing the wii u and releasing the NX faster gets devs on board with better tools to make better games.

Framerate is definitely big. Playing mario kart 8 at 60 fps with more than 2 people would be great. Playing xenoblade X at 60 fps would be phenomenal. Same for third party games.

Its up to devs to decide if the only change the make is resolution. However, giving devs more power opens up the possibilities that they can create (like no mans sky on ps4).

There's no need to assume what's already reality. Being weaker than competition doesn't mean there's a big gap. What are you talking about devs making games  on x system vs the other? we weren't talking about any of that.

It still stands that there wouldn't be major visual differences if wii u games were made on ps4 or x1 hardware. would look better but nothing remotely close to jaw dropping.





curl-6 on 12 January 2016
midrange said:

Framerate is definitely big. Playing mario kart 8 at 60 fps with more than 2 people would be great. Playing xenoblade X at 60 fps would be phenomenal. Same for third party games.

In these instances, I think developer priorities were more the deciding factors than hardware power.

On PS4 spec hardware, Monolith probably still would have run XCX at 30fps, just probably at 1080p with less aggressive LOD and better textures/shaders.

Both could have been 60fps on Wii U if the devs had made it a priority, but they opted for 30fps instead. These priorities would likely remain the same even with more capable hardware.



Around the Network
Jumpin on 12 January 2016

Yes! Yes! Burn it with fire!



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

midrange on 12 January 2016
curl-6 said:
midrange said:

Framerate is definitely big. Playing mario kart 8 at 60 fps with more than 2 people would be great. Playing xenoblade X at 60 fps would be phenomenal. Same for third party games.

In these instances, I think developer priorities were more the deciding factors than hardware power.

On PS4 spec hardware, Monolith probably still would have run XCX at 30fps, just probably at 1080p with less aggressive LOD and better textures/shaders.

Both could have been 60fps on Wii U if the devs had made it a priority, but they opted for 30fps instead. These priorities would likely remain the same even with more capable hardware.

It is up to the developer, but I actually think Nintendo would strive for 60 fps on mario kart. They seem to really be focused on 60 fps on every other game (compromising frame rate in certain situations), which leads me to believe that we wouldn't have these frame-rate compromises if Nintendo had stronger tech work with.



oniyide on 12 January 2016
DevilRising said:
No. Which would probably be why I've repeatedly said that I think they'd be smarter to wait and release in 2017.

It's only rumors, unfounded and certainly unconfirmed, that they would release it in 2016 anyway.

What I want, personally, is to get another good solid year out of my Wii U, and I'd like Zelda U to be Wii U exclusive, not ported to NX, for one so we can have a ground up NX exclusive Zelda down the road to look forward to, but because Wii U also deserves and needs something that it still continues to lack, and that is that ONE game that is a "MUST BUY", that makes the system itself more of a must buy, and is THE definitive game for the console. To me, Wii U has as yet never gotten THAT game. And I think, I hope, that if Zelda U comes even remotely close to living up to the potential that is has, that it could finally be that game. If so, then that needs to happen.

There is just no real reason why Nintendo should NOT give NX more time in the oven, and Wii U more time in the spotlight. Yes, it's a "letdown" of a system, sales-wise. But one last strong year, one "last hurrah", would really mean a lot to it's legacy, not to mention to people like me, who have invested a lot of time and money into the console. I'm certainly in absolutely no hurry to rush out and fork over $400+ (possibly) on a brand new Nintendo console this year. I'd rather get one more year to feel like I'm getting my money's worth out of THIS console first.

 

I understand where you are coming from, but IMHO i think its better for them to kill it instead of suffering because some fans (a small amount in the big picture) would feel pissed, you're gonna buy there next console anyway so it kinda doesnt matter. As for Zelda, TP was ported, didnt stop Wii from getting Skyward Sword so thats a weird reason right there. And to be blunt its been a while since a Zelda game was kinda considered a must buy at least in terms of pushing real console sales. We havent seen one like that since Ocarina



curl-6 on 12 January 2016
midrange said:
curl-6 said:
midrange said:

Framerate is definitely big. Playing mario kart 8 at 60 fps with more than 2 people would be great. Playing xenoblade X at 60 fps would be phenomenal. Same for third party games.

In these instances, I think developer priorities were more the deciding factors than hardware power.

On PS4 spec hardware, Monolith probably still would have run XCX at 30fps, just probably at 1080p with less aggressive LOD and better textures/shaders.

Both could have been 60fps on Wii U if the devs had made it a priority, but they opted for 30fps instead. These priorities would likely remain the same even with more capable hardware.

It is up to the developer, but I actually think Nintendo would strive for 60 fps on mario kart. They seem to really be focused on 60 fps on every other game (compromising frame rate in certain situations), which leads me to believe that we wouldn't have these frame-rate compromises if Nintendo had stronger tech work with.

Even on Wii U they could have made 3-4 player splitscreen 60fps if they'd cut back on the visual fidelity. You're right that they clearly place a lot of value on 60fps, as they shoot for it in most of their games, but they are also some cases where they choose 30fps; not just in Mario Kart's 3-4 player mode, but also in Splatoon's Gamepad-TV splitscreen multiplayer and plaza, and in Pikmin 3. 

As a sucker for 60fps myself I'd like to see them tone down the eye candy to get 3-4 players running in 60fps, but it just smacks of more a design choice than a hardware limitation to me, given that there are games on weaker hardware that can do 3-4 player splitscreen at 60fps. (E.g. Double Dash on Gamecube)

I guess we won't know until Mario Kart 9 arrives.



oniyide on 12 January 2016
AEGRO said:
If i were a Wii U user, i would be fucking mad that my console is going to the slaughter house in less than 4 years since its release.

There is no other way around it for me. I firmly believe in long generations. It is better for the consumer, for the developer and the console maker.

If Nintendo keeps doing this 0.5 gens, i dont see how they will be competitive in this game. Unless they are fine with sub-20m consoles like the Wii U, because people are not going to support it nor developers.

serious question: when did you get Wii U and did you not kinda see this coming? I mean when a console is selling this bad its not odd to think that the company might just kill it sooner than later. Nature of the beast. 

You believe in long generations? The only one that really adheres to that is Sony. Every Ninty home console after SNES had like 5 years and that fifth year is usually meh at best, hell even the popular Wii wasnt exempt. I dont know why people are shocked.