Nintendo about to announce Wii successor

[JayP]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I dunno, it should be a given that it's better than the 360 or the PS3, I mean, they're 5+ year old technology. It better be significantly better. How much better though, I'm not quite sure. And if it's not that much better, I might wait until the PS4 or the next 360 console.

Knowing me though, I'll probably eventually get all 3 consoles again once prices fall from their initial offering.

It would be very surprising if it wasn't better, but I wouldn't expect a Xbox->360 or PS2->PS3 level jump.

And you'll be waiting years for the next Sony or Microsoft console if you do decide to wait. Both companies have stated many times they wanted a 10-year lifecycle from the consoles and that's still 4 years away. They clearly want to break the cycle of a new console every 5 or so years.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Nintendo is a little late to the party here, well 5 years late really.

The processor is similar to the 360's (3 core), the GPU is a bit better than the PS3 (I think the 360's is better though).

I'm not sure where you are getting this. You cannot compare processor architectures this way and the new Wii's GPU is based on the ATI R700 (ie: ATI 4000 series). That does baffle me as R700 is pretty much computing ancient history as it came out in 2008. I'm not sure why they didn't perhaps consider building something on AMD Fusion.

R700 however, is still newer and much more powerful than than the PS3's RSX (a weaker NVIDIA G70, 7800 series GPU) which is from 2005 and the Xbox 360's Xenos, (R500 derivative, similar to the ATI 1900 series) also from 2005.

If you bought the Alienware with the i7 2620QM and ATI 6970M, your laptop is on a magnitude of 5-10 faster than any console depending on if you are looking at CPU or GPU power.

Given that historically, Nintendo has been the only company that really profits on their consoles at a decent rate, I'm assuming they are going for a major budget build that will be extremely overpriced like the Wii is. Their margins on hardware for consoles and handhelds are very high. It's almost the opposite of the situation with Microsoft and Sony which lose money on their systems and focus on making money off games.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I'm not sure where you are getting this. You cannot compare processor architectures this way and the new Wii's GPU is based on the ATI R700. That does baffle me as R700 is pretty much computing ancient history as it came out in 2008. I'm not sure why they didn't perhaps consider building something on AMD Fusion.

R700 however, is still newer and much more powerful than than the PS3's RSX (a weaker NVIDIA G70, 7800 series GPU) which is from 2005 and the Xbox 360's Xenos, (R500 derivative, similar to the ATI 1900 series) also from 2005.

If you bought the Alienware with the i7 2620QM and ATI 6970M, your laptop is on a magnitude of 5-10 faster than any console depending on if you are looking at CPU or GPU power.

Given that historically, Nintendo has been the only company that really profits on their consoles at a decent rate, I'm assuming they are going for a major budget build that will be extremely overpriced like the Wii is. Their margins on hardware for consoles and handhelds are very high. It's almost the opposite of the situation with Microsoft and Sony which lose money on their systems and focus on making money off games.

I know I can't compare as they aren't similar at all really, just in "processing power". Really, it is only speculation any way.

The biggest thing I think is that they are pricing it at $300-400.

[GreenLantern]

I haven't bought a gaming console since Playstation 1... I bought a PS2 but it was years after the release.. played it a few times and haven't touched it since, not even sure where it is right now to be honest I think in a buddies garage somewhere..

I have tried all the latest console games I can't get on my computer and haven't been impressed. The only real plus for consoles is that I can sit there and play it with friends on the couch, where as Computer the only multi gaming I will get is via the internet.

But still I haven't seen a console in years that was worth my money, I am hoping this new gen of 3d gaming will change my mind.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

But if the cost to include 3D abilities in the next Nintendo is as cheap as it is for TVs now, then it isn't such a big gamble to include it, I suppose.

It isn't. Stereo 3D, whilst fairly simple to implement, requires a lot of extra computational power (essentially double, for a given resolution and framerate).

Originally Posted by GreenLantern

But still I haven't seen a console in years that was worth my money, I am hoping this new gen of 3d gaming will change my mind.

3D on PC is many miles ahead of 3D on console, simply because many existing games work in 3D by default.

[Hack&Lube]

I too have never bought a console in about 10 years. The Dreamcast is the last one I've paid money for and I still own and dust it off from time to time. I have a PS1, PS2, and PS3 but they are ones I've rescued from people or from the trash (yep, PS3 was found in the trash). I did buy a few Wiis but that was for making money and they were sold off right away during the Christmas season craze.

You couldn't pay me to play games on a modern console, especially a shooter with a gamepad. I've actually feigned injury before to avoid playing Gears of War when the controller was passed to me. My laptop can plug into any HD TV and it's basically the same thing (except much more powerful) if I want couch gaming. I gotta pick up another wireless Xbox 360 controller for some games though (racing). I'm getting tired of my USB one and it sucks that we need analog sticks in so many games now, otherwise I'd still be using my USB Sega Saturn pad (kicks ass in Street Fighter IV).

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

You couldn't pay me to play games on a modern console,

I am shocked.

[3 Justin 3]

Why is everyone so fixated on 3D gaming or 3D movies?

Honest question.

For the next gen this is what you guys want? Laptops already do it for most games.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Why is everyone so fixated on 3D gaming or 3D movies?

Honest question.

For the next gen this is what you guys want? Laptops already do it for most games.

Not sure what you're talking about. Virtually all laptops do not already do 3D, but I'm not even sure that's what you meant.

And 3D is sweet. It's a huge graphical leap, similar to colour. The immersion, especially for first person games, is so much greater. Haven't you previously said that they don't work for you? As in you don't see the depth? If that's correct, then how would you explain to someone who only sees in black and white why everyone is so fixated on colour?

[3 Justin 3]

I can get the 3D effect (like in Avatar and in most IMAX movies) but I just don't find it more engaging at all.

I think the 3DS has terrible 3D for most of the games (I'll wait and see if any proper games can utilize it though).

My main gripe is the glasses though, until they can develop tech that can make a 50" tv display 3D without wearing glasses, then I'll be fine with it. Until then, it is silly (my opinion any way, bash away).

[HeartsOfFire]

And not a single fata was given.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

My main gripe is the glasses though, until they can develop tech that can make a 50" tv display 3D without wearing glasses, then I'll be fine with it. Until then, it is silly (my opinion any way, bash away).

Phillips had a 42" commercially available a few years ago, but there was no content for it and it cost 20,000 pounds.

[bradster57]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I don't see why Nintendo needs to have super amazing graphics that blow everything out of the water. If the games are fun I'm not terribly concerned with them looking amazing. The best selling Wii games are the ones with cartoony graphics anyway (aside from stuff like Metroid Prime 3). Mario Galaxy 2 for example looks awesome, and it doesn't need a PS3 system to do that.

Well that goes back to the point that Nintendo isn't marketing to the hardcore gamer they are marketing to casual gamers. Casual gamers don't care about graphics, they care more about ease of use and how fun the game is.

[3 Justin 3]

Casual gamers only buy a game or two a year as well.

Most hardcore gamers buy way more than that. I have 50+ myself but I am by no means the average (maybe?).

Most $ is made by software sales, not hardware. Maybe Nintendo wants a share of that finally.