Nintendo's Next Gen Console - The Wii U?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Flaming Choy

Only problem with this is it's a single touch screen, no multi-touch. If they were smart, they'd changed that to multi-touch so they could get android/iOS devs to sell stuff on there also.

Interesting, where does it say that it's not multitouch? Seems like a big oversight.

[photon]

Or just a cost measure, if they're going to have the controllers be anything near affordable multi-touch screens might have been too expensive.

[Burninator]

Bought a Wii a couple of years ago and used it lots initially, and has since been collecting dust. The games for Xbox 360 are so much more appealing to me than 95% of the Wii library that there is little chance I would make the same mistake again. I bet a lot of people will consider buying this and think twice once they look at their neglected Wii stashed at the back corner of their entertainment centre.

It looks pretty nifty, but I bet the novelty wears off. The hardware box looks tiny, so I bet it isn't close to the 360 and PS3 in terms of computing power. A lot of the stuff in the demo looks completely gimmicky and nothing more. I would buy a PS3 to supplement my 360 well before I would buy this.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by photon

Or just a cost measure, if they're going to have the controllers be anything near affordable multi-touch screens might have been too expensive.

You'd think that the cost difference between multi-touch and regular would be very small right now? Almost every single touch device being made is multi-touch.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

You'd think that the cost difference between multi-touch and regular would be very small right now? Almost every single touch device being made is multi-touch.

Could be but I don't know for sure, and the multi-touch devices we're most familiar with (phones) cost almost an order of magnitude more than what you'd expect a console controller to cost.

$10 more for a screen adds up fast when you expect to produce many tens of millions of them, both in added costs and lost sales.

[3 Justin 3]

My biggest problem is the name. Wii U? The Wii had a stupid enough name, but now it adds a random U to it?

My god that thing sounds ridiculous.

Also, the controllers are going to cost a fortune. No way they can sell them for $60/each like Sony/Microsoft.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by LockedOut

Just a thought. What can this Wii-U do that Sony wouldn't be able to replicate with their PS3 and PS Vita?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vita and PS3 can't be used in combination, can they? The Vita can stream PS3 games on it, but you can't use the two together in unison for dual-screen gaming.

That's the big key I think. The controller essentially has all the buttons of the PS3/360 controllers, but using the touchscreen to remove useless HUDs, improve inventory screens (with touch), and prevent the player from having to pause the game to look up information (ie; dungeon map in Zelda) is the key for hardcore gaming.

Oh, and the motion controls are obviously something the Vita couldn't do either. By the sounds of some of the demos, they seem more practical than the Wii.

[Tinordi]

Seems like FPS games have alot of potential with this. In a 4 v 4 local deathmatch your controller screens could act as your own personal viewpoint. What the TV would display would be interesting. Maybe a list of dynamic objectives, an overview map, something else?

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by photon

$10 more for a screen adds up fast when you expect to produce many tens of millions of them, both in added costs and lost sales.

Considering how much Nintendo charges for peripherals, $10 more in cost would probably mean an extra $20 for the consumer. Imagine paying $100 for a console controller. If you need 3 extra controllers for your shiny new Wii U, this thing could end up costing the consumer well over $500 after everything is said and done.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by JayP

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vita and PS3 can't be used in combination, can they? The Vita can stream PS3 games on it, but you can't use the two together in unison for dual-screen gaming.

That's the big key I think. The controller essentially has all the buttons of the PS3/360 controllers, but using the touchscreen to remove useless HUDs, improve inventory screens (with touch), and prevent the player from having to pause the game to look up information (ie; dungeon map in Zelda) is the key for hardcore gaming.

Oh, and the motion controls are obviously something the Vita couldn't do either. By the sounds of some of the demos, they seem more practical than the Wii.

I think Sony will add that capability though.

IIRC correctly they have toyed with it in the past on racing games, where the screen on the PSP acted as a rear view mirror for your car.

I will say now that the size of the controller is not nearly as big an issue for me as it was before. The original image looked weird because the controller looks huge in what must have been extremely tiny hands, after watching a video of a guy holding it the size looks more feasible. It still looks like holding it is a little awkward but at least the size is not as big as i had thought.

If they do this right and use it as a secondary resource to help add features to games, instead of using it as the main feature of the game itself (See new Kinect/Move games) then Nintendo will be extremely successful with this new system.

Well really they will be successful anyway just because the Nintendo brand and first party games are so strong.

[Flaming Choy]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Interesting, where does it say that it's not multitouch? Seems like a big oversight.

I heard it on Gametrailers when they were interviewing Reggie. Was a little surprised myself. Didn't think the price gap between touch and multi-touch would be that much.

[JohnnyB]

Looks exciting to me. Lots of potential in having a screen of a decent size and motion sensor in the controller. Could be a great platform for introducing some cool Augmented Reality gaming possibilities to the console market.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Byrns

They're the same people who complained that the Wii's lesser graphics would be it's doom. Funny how that worked out.

It terms of actually having people play them, it kind of was...

No HD, no third-party games.

==============

Originally Posted by Shades

Motion control is to videogames as 3D is to movies.

Originally Posted by likwid888

To the hardcore gamer, yes.

What a strange discussion, considering it's hardcore gamers who are playing their games in 3D already.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Burninator

The hardware box looks tiny, so I bet it isn't close to the 360 and PS3 in terms of computing power.

No offense, but I don't think you know what the stats of the 360 and PS3 really are like.

360 - 3.2GHz Tri-Core Processor, 512MB RAM (shared between CPU and GPU), 500MHz video card similar to Radeon HD 2000. Nothing exactly mind blowing by today's standards.
PS3 - 3.2GHz Cell Processor ("8" cores), 256MB RAM, 256MB GPU RAM, 500MHz video card similar to GeForce 7800. Again, computers of 2011 are significantly improved.

What exactly makes you think Nintendo cannot make a budget system with better specs considering today's computers?

Also, many tablets are introducing dual core processors. I imagine the controller isn't as expensive to produce these days as it might have been 5 years ago.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by likwid888

The screen is 6.5 inches.

Everyone adds a couple inches...

[Russic]

Nintendo has pretty much lost me as a customer. I fell for the wii hype and ended up being annoyed by the whole company. I can't even totally explain it, I just don't trust them to make a product that appeals to me.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

No offense, but I don't think you know what the stats of the 360 and PS3 really are like.

360 - 3.2GHz Tri-Core Processor, 512MB RAM (shared between CPU and GPU), 500MHz video card similar to Radeon HD 2000. Nothing exactly mind blowing by today's standards.
PS3 - 3.2GHz Cell Processor ("8" cores), 256MB RAM, 256MB GPU RAM, 500MHz video card similar to GeForce 7800. Again, computers of 2011 are significantly improved.

What exactly makes you think Nintendo cannot make a budget system with better specs considering today's computers?

Also, many tablets are introducing dual core processors. I imagine the controller isn't as expensive to produce these days as it might have been 5 years ago.

Oh I could be talking out of my butt. I just based it on the physical size of the console that Nintendo showed, which is about the same size as the Wii. From what I understand Nintendo doesn't like to lose money on it's consoles. So I doubt it's cutting edge and Nintendo will take a loss with the sales. They were making money day one when the Wii came out. I am guessing they will do the same with a similar price as the Wii when it came out. It is possible to fit the appropriate components into such a small device and keep the price low? If they could won't the redesigned 360 and PS3 be a lot smaller? Plus I thought the stuff showed off didn't look as good as the 360 or PS3 stuff.

[Mazrim]

Um, some of the demos were actually PS3/360 versions, lol. Not as good? Maybe the Wii Spots type stuff which looked very much like old Wii games.

Just a side note: IBM Says Wii U Uses Watson's Brains (you know, the computer that beat people on Jeopardy)
http://www.1up.com/news/ibm-nintendo-wii-watson-brains

While IBM wouldn't reveal the processor's clock speeds, The Wii U uses a 45nm custom chip with, what IBM states, is "a lot" of embedded DRAM.

I also watched a video of the Wii U controller in action and it seemed better than I expected. At least, the comfort/weight issues people considered do not seem to be a problem.

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Everyone adds a couple inches...

No no no, it's length x width / yaw * angle of the shaft + circumference.

[fredr123]

Oh Wii U



/ripped off of reddit