Details Emerge on Nintendo Wii U

[dman1373]

Explain how this is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_GameCube#Technical_specifications

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox#Technical_specifications

yeah i was about to come back and change that, it is only more powerful then the ps2, sorry for the mixup.

 

[Moon Knight]

yeah i was about to come back and change that, it is only more powerful then the ps2, sorry for the mixup.

It's cool. We all make mistakes.

 

[Stormtrooper]

You're the one who brought up the original Wii, not me.

You're right, I brought it up, because you're comparing apples and oranges. I'm comparing apples and apples.

Which was an inferior system. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are not inferior systems to the Wii U.

Yeah, they kinda are, but whatever. Just do a google search for the WiiU specs, and look at the PS3 specs.

Not at all true. They were questioning whether the motion controls could be implemented well. No one disputed that a well designed motion control system could be a fantastic addition to gaming.

Funny because never once did I see anything at all like that. In fact, everything I saw was the exact opposite. Motion control is pointless, Wii will be a massive flop, Nintendo will lose this console generation, Nintendo will go out of business, etc.

No they didn't. They destroyed them based on price. Once the price of the PS3 and Xbox 360 dropped, they both saw an increase of sales, as the Wii saw decreases in sales.

Or the better way to look at it is everyone had a Wii already, and didn't need another one. That's the more logical answer. I mean they sold 100 million units. If they didn't sell anything, your statement has merit, but they sold 100 MILLION units.

It wasn't marketing, it was gimmick (motion controls) and price. And now they are trying to sell for the same price with not nearly as innovative of a gimmick.

And how in the hell do you think that motion control "gimmick" got to be so popular, even before the launch of the system? MARKETING! They weren't the first to do motion control (EyeToy was around for a while). Nintendo just did it well, and marketed the hell out of it.

And Tablet controller not innovative? Really? Second screen console gameplay is an extremely innovative gimmick, since it's NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. The only lack of innovation on Nintendo's part is the whole HD thing, which they are very behind the 8-Ball in.

First of all, the Xbox 360 was released before the Wii. Second of all, they are competing with the current gen WITH THE SAME PRICE. As I already mentioned.

The Wii didn't compete against the Xbox and the PS2, and you're just being naive if you stick to that story.

They competed against the PS3/360, but graphically they were being compared to PS2/XBOX.

And that something different means it is being priced at the same cost as the current gen Xbox and PS3, which means they are basically betting on people upgrading simply for the tablet controller, for a system which doesn't have near the moxy that its competitors have.

Again, from what I have seen with the specs, the Wii U is more powerful then PS3. Not ridiculously more powerful, but more powerful.

Will the Wii U tank? It's hard to know right now. All I'm saying is I won't be surprised to see a pretty quick price reduction. And if Microsoft and Sony, when they do release their next system, can put them into the market at a $100 or less price difference, then I think the Wii U will get obliterated.

They'll drop in price once the new Sony/Microsoft systems come out. MAYBE before if they take a long time and the systems start costing less to make. They're selling the product at a rate where they won't be losing a shit-ton of money per unit. They'll always do that, so once the cost of making it goes down, the price will do the same.

At the end of the day, a LOT will depend upon this new tablet controller. Basically the Wii U's future is riding on that controller, because people no longer have a financial incentive to buy Nintendo. They don't have incentive based upon game library. They don't have incentive based upon hardware capabilities. Nintendo is betting on people upgrading and the tablet controller.

Now this is just the biggest load of crap ever.

Nintendo is the exclusive home to the top 2 gaming franchises of all time (Mario/Zelda); The top party franchise arguably of all time (Smash Bros); the top racing franchise of all time (Mario Kart).

And now with them putting out a system with HD capabilities on the most powerful system on the market, there is no excuse for any 3rd party developer to not bring their games over.


One more thing. They're putting a fucking TABLET in the fucking box. Last I checked, tablets cost a few hundred dollars. an HD gaming system with a tablet for 300? Yeah, I'd say that's a fucking bargain.

 

[dman1373]

You're right, I brought it up, because you're comparing apples and oranges. I'm comparing apples and apples.


Yeah, they kinda are, but whatever. Just do a google search for the WiiU specs, and look at the PS3 specs.


Funny because never once did I see anything at all like that. In fact, everything I saw was the exact opposite. Motion control is pointless, Wii will be a massive flop, Nintendo will lose this console generation, Nintendo will go out of business, etc.


Or the better way to look at it is everyone had a Wii already, and didn't need another one. That's the more logical answer. I mean they sold 100 million units. If they didn't sell anything, your statement has merit, but they sold 100 MILLION units.


And how in the hell do you think that motion control "gimmick" got to be so popular, even before the launch of the system? MARKETING! They weren't the first to do motion control (EyeToy was around for a while). Nintendo just did it well, and marketed the hell out of it.

And Tablet controller not innovative? Really? Second screen console gameplay is an extremely innovative gimmick, since it's NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. The only lack of innovation on Nintendo's part is the whole HD thing, which they are very behind the 8-Ball in.


They competed against the PS3/360, but graphically they were being compared to PS2/XBOX.


Again, from what I have seen with the specs, the Wii U is more powerful then PS3. Not ridiculously more powerful, but more powerful.


They'll drop in price once the new Sony/Microsoft systems come out. MAYBE before if they take a long time and the systems start costing less to make. They're selling the product at a rate where they won't be losing a shit-ton of money per unit. They'll always do that, so once the cost of making it goes down, the price will do the same.


Now this is just the biggest load of crap ever.

Nintendo is the exclusive home to the top 2 gaming franchises of all time (Mario/Zelda); The top party franchise arguably of all time (Smash Bros); the top racing franchise of all time (Mario Kart).

And now with them putting out a system with HD capabilities on the most powerful system on the market, there is no excuse for any 3rd party developer to not bring their games over.


One more thing. They're putting a fucking TABLET in the fucking box. Last I checked, tablets cost a few hundred dollars. an HD gaming system with a tablet for 300? Yeah, I'd say that's a fucking bargain.

i like this guy

 

[DirtyJosé]

And Tablet controller not innovative? Really? Second screen console gameplay is an extremely innovative gimmick, since it's NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.

Except when Nintendo let you use the GBA with the Gamecube. Or when Dreamcast had the VMU's before that.

 

[dman1373]

Except when Nintendo let you use the GBA with the Gamecube. Or when Dreamcast had the VMU's before that.

in that same sense the wii controller isn't inovative as its just like the power glove.

 

[DirtyJosé]

in that same sense the wii controller isn't inovative as its just like the power glove.

Not quite. The Power Glove never tried to do full motion simulation, a key point of the Wii. The most popular Wii game I know, the included Sports title, won players and consumers over with the kind of imitation of sports that the Glove never was meant for. There was also the Nunchuck add-on, and the idea of a "split" controller. These are innovations. The only change from the GBA add on to the Gamecube and this WiiU GamePad is the touch screen element. The concept of a visual controller, and the many ways it could be used, is something Nintendo has been exploring for a long long time now.

I'm not saying I don't think anything good will come from it. I'm not saying there's no chance that they might find design space to work with that we haven't seen yet. I am saying, however, that Stormy's initial statement that
"second-screen controllers/technology" is something we haven't seen before is provably wrong.

 

[Moon Knight]

Except when Nintendo let you use the GBA with the Gamecube. Or when Dreamcast had the VMU's before that.

The dreamcast thing was a memory card and not a touch screen. Never had much use for it, the Wii U thing is more closer to a legit tablet.

 

[Барбоса]

Could it be that Nintendo are rolling out the Wii U earlier in the US than in the EU or Japan to take advantage of Black Friday?

 

[Moon Knight]

Could it be that Nintendo are rolling out the Wii U earlier in the US than in the EU or Japan to take advantage of Black Friday?

Because moving the EU release up by 12 days would prevent that.

 

[Барбоса]

Because moving the EU release up by 12 days would prevent that.

Maybe Nintendo are somewhat pushed to get them all released at the same time so have decided to prioritise the post-Thanksgiving killing session in the US?

 

[red ass skull muhfukkah]

Except when Nintendo let you use the GBA with the Gamecube. Or when Dreamcast had the VMU's before that.

Pokemon Stadium let you connect your Game Boy Color to your N64 too.

 

[Alex]

Irritates the hell out of me to be honest. The first game was dope, now they're limiting their scope of sales?

That does seem to be what's happening. I mean Bayonetta was really popular, but I don't see the sequel being exclusive to rack up the sales of the system all that much

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

 

[Slyfox696]

You're right, I brought it up, because you're comparing apples and oranges. I'm comparing apples and apples.

I'm comparing the three systems which will be available on December 31st.

How is that apples and oranges? What exactly should I be comparing the Wii U to?

Yeah, they kinda are, but whatever. Just do a google search for the WiiU specs, and look at the PS3 specs.

I have. And not really.

Funny because never once did I see anything at all like that.

Then you obviously weren't looking in the right place.

Or the better way to look at it is everyone had a Wii already, and didn't need another one. That's the more logical answer. I mean they sold 100 million units. If they didn't sell anything, your statement has merit, but they sold 100 MILLION units.

No, they sold 96.3 million units.

However, the Playstation 2, which you mentioned earlier is apparently in competition with the Wii (not sure how, but that's what you said) sold 153.7 million units.

So clearly your statement is off by at least 50 million. Not really logical.

And how in the hell do you think that motion control "gimmick" got to be so popular, even before the launch of the system? MARKETING! They weren't the first to do motion control (EyeToy was around for a while). Nintendo just did it well, and marketed the hell out of it.

I never said Nintendo was bad at marketing. What I said is they don't have an advantage over Microsoft and Sony. Apple has a HUGE marketing advantage with their iPod over the other MP3 players, Nintendo does not have the same advantage over Microsoft and Sony.

And Tablet controller not innovative? Really?

I've been playing games on a tablet for years. How is that innovative?

They competed against the PS3/360, but graphically they were being compared to PS2/XBOX.

Who cares what they were compared to graphically?

You stated originally that the Wii sold better than the PS3 and Xbox 360, at which point I noted the costs on those other two system were substantially more. I'm notwpointing out the cost of a Wii U is roughly the same as those other two systems, and the hardware is not any better.

This is not a difficult thing to understand, but you seem hellbent on confusing yourself.

Again, from what I have seen with the specs, the Wii U is more powerful then PS3. Not ridiculously more powerful, but more powerful.

And from what I've seen, not really. For example, hard drive space? Media center capabilities? Play DVD or Blu-Ray? Game library?

You're focusing almost solely upon two things I would imagine, and that's memory and tri-core processor, am I right? Because disc space is the same, PS3 has much larger hard drive, as well as DVD/Blu-Ray playback, both have full 1080p resolution, networking capabilities, etc.

Now this is just the biggest load of crap ever.

Really? The 50 or so games available at launch compares to the hundreds, if not thousands, of games available for the other two systems?

And now with them putting out a system with HD capabilities on the most powerful system on the market, there is no excuse for any 3rd party developer to not bring their games over.

At least until Microsoft or Sony announce a new system...

One more thing. They're putting a fucking TABLET in the fucking box. Last I checked, tablets cost a few hundred dollars. an HD gaming system with a tablet for 300? Yeah, I'd say that's a fucking bargain.

Can I take my Wii U tablet with me in my car to read? Will I able to play Angry Birds on it? Can I take it to a hotel and watch Netflix? How about posting on the WZ Forums, what chances do I have of that?

If the answer is no then you're being flat out ridiculous comparing it to the tablets that cost "a few hundred dollars".

 

[DirtyJosé]

The dreamcast thing was a memory card and not a touch screen. Never had much use for it, the Wii U thing is more closer to a legit tablet.

I know it wasn't a touch-screen. Again, the point was about "second-screen" experimentation, and some games did indeed utilize the VMU for more than just flashing a logo (NFL 2k series comes to mind).

 

[Stormtrooper]

I have. And not really.

Then you obviously weren't looking in the right place.

Well then where the fuck were you looking? Sony Playstation Blog or something?

No, they sold 96.3 million units.

However, the Playstation 2, which you mentioned earlier is apparently in competition with the Wii (not sure how, but that's what you said) sold 153.7 million units.

So clearly your statement is off by at least 50 million. Not really logical.

I said they were similar graphically.

I never said Nintendo was bad at marketing. What I said is they don't have an advantage over Microsoft and Sony. Apple has a HUGE marketing advantage with their iPod over the other MP3 players, Nintendo does not have the same advantage over Microsoft and Sony.

It was pretty fucking close, considering their "inferior" system dominated the "superior" systems for fucking years.

I've been playing games on a tablet for years. How is that innovative?

Really? You were playing Playstation with your tablet? I didn't know that.

Who cares what they were compared to graphically?

Everyone and their mother who ever bashed Nintendo for having a graphically inferior system.

You stated originally that the Wii sold better than the PS3 and Xbox 360, at which point I noted the costs on those other two system were substantially more. I'm notwpointing out the cost of a Wii U is roughly the same as those other two systems, and the hardware is not any better.

This is not a difficult thing to understand, but you seem hellbent on confusing yourself.

Well since virtually every article and the specs say that the hardware IS better, then I fail to see your logic. Show me something that says the hardware is inferior? You can't, because it doesn't exist.

And from what I've seen, not really. For example, hard drive space? Media center capabilities? Play DVD or Blu-Ray? Game library?

So in other words as a game system there is nothing different, aside from having less games, due to it being a brand new system. I see. All those other things are irrelevant. It's a game system. Not a Blu-Ray player.

You're focusing almost solely upon two things I would imagine, and that's memory and tri-core processor, am I right? Because disc space is the same, PS3 has much larger hard drive, as well as DVD/Blu-Ray playback, both have full 1080p resolution, networking capabilities, etc.

Actually, I think I read disc space is larger on Wii U.

And yeah, I'm looking at the processor and memory. The Hard Drive stuff is useless, as I can get a harddrive for a Wii U. Blu-Ray playback is irrelevant to a gaming console.

If I'm looking at 2 cars, give me the one with a better engine. Who gives a shit if the car radio is better in the other one. Wii U has a better engine.

Really? The 50 or so games available at launch compares to the hundreds, if not thousands, of games available for the other two systems?

You said Nintendo doesn't have any incentive for people to buy their system. I proved based on their amazing exclusives that they do.

I'd say that's pretty cut and dry.

Can I take my Wii U tablet with me in my car to read? Will I able to play Angry Birds on it? Can I take it to a hotel and watch Netflix? How about posting on the WZ Forums, what chances do I have of that?

If the answer is no then you're being flat out ridiculous comparing it to the tablets that cost "a few hundred dollars".

It's the fucking technology in it. You're acting like this technology is readily available and ridiculously cheap. It's EASILY the most advanced controller ever created for a video game console, and very expensive. You're acting like it's nothing more then a plain old controller. It's a fucking TABLET. You can play your fucking games on it, without the need of the TV. It plays HD video. It does everything a tablet does in your house. I'd fucking say that's pretty fucking badass. And again, it's innovative, and to say otherwise is fucking stupid.

 

[Remix]

Can I take my Wii U tablet with me in my car to read?

You shouldn't read and drive.

Will I able to play Angry Birds on it?

The Wii U runs on Android, and one of the features is that you can play a Wii U game on the gamepad while someone else uses the TV. So probably.

Can I take it to a hotel and watch Netflix?

Again, the Wii U can stream Netflix, and use the game pad to display it. However, it doesn't have the processing power to do that sort of thing on its own.

How about posting on the WZ Forums, what chances do I have of that?

I don't see why not. It probably has a browser, and due to aforementioned streaming onto the gamepad it would be possible.

If the answer is no then you're being flat out ridiculous comparing it to the tablets that cost "a few hundred dollars".

Well 2/4 (which rises to 3/4 or 4/4 when it's used in the home, as it's designed to be) ain't bad considering it's not competing with tablets.

 

[FlexAmerican Dynamite]

Yeah this is something I'll most likely wait at least six months on. Too many games coming out soon on already proven systems so I can't see myself taking a risk on this.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Honestly, Nintendo only needs to stay on top with this machine for a year or two to make it worth it to them. Even if Microsoft and Sony deliver amazing machines later on, getting the head start means millions of dollars that Nintendo desperately needs on this.

Debate about the merits of the machine all you want, but look at the iPhone 5. Brand loyalty does still exist, even if it means getting excited about "catch-up" technology. Being out in time for Black Friday and then Christmas here in the US almost guarantees it will sell. The real question is whether they can sustain that excitement until the competition responds.

 

[Slyfox696]

Well then where the fuck were you looking? Sony Playstation Blog or something?

I didn't know they had one.

But no, I just saw various things around the Internet. Not sure where you were looking, but since you're the one doubting my statement, I suppose it's more your loss than mine.

I said they were similar graphically.

And I'm saying the PS2 sold 50 million more units, so the idea that everyone already had a Wii really isn't a valid explanation.

It was pretty fucking close, considering their "inferior" system dominated the "superior" systems for fucking years.

Yes, because of the price difference and the gimmick.

I feel like you're not bothering to actually comprehend the basics of my posts.

Really? You were playing Playstation with your tablet? I didn't know that.

No, but I was playing games. So please explain how playing games on a tablet is innovative.

But since you mention it:

Everyone and their mother who ever bashed Nintendo for having a graphically inferior system.

That's great, but who cares in relevance to our discussion?

Well since virtually every article and the specs say that the hardware IS better, then I fail to see your logic. Show me something that says the hardware is inferior? You can't, because it doesn't exist.

So in other words as a game system there is nothing different, aside from having less games, due to it being a brand new system. I see. All those other things are irrelevant. It's a game system. Not a Blu-Ray player.

No, it's not at all irrelevant and things like a Blu-Ray player IS hardware. But good job on trying to distract from the actual point with a red herring.

Actually, I think I read disc space is larger on Wii U.

25 GB, both Wii and PS3.

And yeah, I'm looking at the processor and memory. The Hard Drive stuff is useless, as I can get a harddrive for a Wii U.

Now you're talking $400 for the lower level Wii U, compared to $300 for the PS3. Good argument.

Blu-Ray playback is irrelevant to a gaming console.

The thousands, if not millions, of people who watch DVDs and Blu-Ray on their consoles beg to differ with you.

If I'm looking at 2 cars, give me the one with a better engine. Who gives a shit if the car radio is better in the other one. Wii U has a better engine.

You can have the better engine, and I'll take the one with better overall performance and/or lower price.

You said Nintendo doesn't have any incentive for people to buy their system. I proved based on their amazing exclusives that they do.

Every console has "amazing exclusives". Good try though.

It's the fucking technology in it. You're acting like this technology is readily available and ridiculously cheap. It's EASILY the most advanced controller ever created for a video game console, and very expensive.

Umm, YOU were the one who compared it to other tablets that cost "hundreds of dollars", not me.

Do me a favor. Before you make your next post, try to understand my point AND review what you've posted. Things will go much smoother.

You're acting like it's nothing more then a plain old controller.

Never once have I done any such thing. I said it's the gimmick Nintendo is hoping to use to sell consoles, since, along with simple upgrades, they don't have much else going for it.

It sure is easy to defeat someone's argument when you misrepresent their argument. Of course, when that someone points out how badly you've misrepresented said argument, it just makes you look silly.

It's a fucking TABLET. You can play your fucking games on it, without the need of the TV. It plays HD video. It does everything a tablet does in your house. I'd fucking say that's pretty fucking badass. And again, it's innovative, and to say otherwise is fucking stupid.

You shouldn't read and drive.

The Wii U runs on Android, and one of the features is that you can play a Wii U game on the gamepad while someone else uses the TV. So probably.

Again, the Wii U can stream Netflix, and use the game pad to display it. However, it doesn't have the processing power to do that sort of thing on its own.

I don't see why not. It probably has a browser, and due to aforementioned streaming onto the gamepad it would be possible.

Well 2/4 (which rises to 3/4 or 4/4 when it's used in the home, as it's designed to be) ain't bad considering it's not competing with tablets.

I was referring to the tablet itself, which Stormtrooper compared to other tablets.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

*PC Gamer elitism alert*

2 GB of RAM is something to be excited about? With the price of RAM nowadays that's the best they could do? I can go buy an 8 GB kit for $40 nowadays and that's retail cost with the really shiny heatsinks. Wholesale standard memory should be extremely cheap. Is it higher then the 360 and PS3? Yes, but those are systems that came out 6 years ago.

The PS4 and Xbox 720 (or whatever the hell they call them) should blow that 2 GB out of the water. Because game consoles are essentially dedicated computers nowadays, we as consumers should be seeing components and specs a lot higher then a computer from 8 years ago.

2GBs of RAM is perfectly fine, if not exceeding their needs for the system they're trying to make. What are they going to do with 4, 6, or 8 gigs of RAM?

 

[Moon Knight]

2GBs of RAM is perfectly fine, if not exceeding their needs for the system they're trying to make. What are they going to do with 4, 6, or 8 gigs of RAM?

Again. Half of that is dedicated to the OS not games and it doesn't matter what Nintendo is going to do, but what 3rd party developers want to to. Games on consoles right now are still starved for memory, and this won't change with the Wii U.

 

[Moon Knight]

 

[Tiger Chaos Theory]

Well we can only hope Wii U outsells the PS Vita