E3 Rumor: Powerful Wii HD with HD Controller

[jarraramjad]

cutting edge are u stupid nvidia 256 mb 7 series is real cutting edge noob

 

[silverblue]

Regardless of whatever Nintendo is developing, I doubt it'll come with the top graphics at the time. I'd say it was likely to be a tweaked high-end Cayman derivative on a 32nm process. However, we're already moving well beyond the Wii in terms of how much (or rather, how little) power is used, so perhaps it would suit Nintendo to go with a more powerful version of Fusion; it'd still use far less power than the PS3 and yet be several times quicker. However, AMD don't yet have a low-power part capable of 3D and tesselation, both of which will be necessary... hmm.

 

[Jprobes]

[citation][nom]amk09[/nom]That's the obvious route a greedy(or in your words "smart") company would take... but we as consumers want Innovation. I would rather pay $500 for a next-gen console that has substantial hardware upgrades than $300 for one with smaller "incremental" upgrades. IMO it would be beyond stupid for them to release a console that didn't destroy the xbox 360/PS3..[/citation]

Nintendo will never eat a hardware loss, they never have and they never will. They are too conservative as a business model to approach gaming like that.

They profited from the WII from the start so expect that to be the case with this next console, and if they do eat a loss it will be absolutely minimal.

Nintendo is a great company but when it comes to servicing 3rd party demands of graphical output, they could care less. The only developer they care about is themselves, as long as the hardware suits internal developments needs they will be happy.

That being said Nintendo's game development is some of the best in the business when it comes to game play and squeezing out graphical content. They do not and have never cater to 3rd party support in the modern gaming area.

Golden Examples:

N64: Sticking to a obsolete cartridge format.
GameCube: Low storage medium again, 1gb mini discs let developers stay away.
Wii: No HDTV capabilities in the long term kept developers away.

Listen, I love Nintendo and their games. Honestly, they make some of the best games generation to generation. As a company though, they are in it for themselves, which is fine by me but I will never buy a Nintendo console expecting awesome 3rd party developer support.

They have not had a substantial exclusive 3rd party developer system since the SNES. Most of those companies abandoned Nintendo as a legitimate developers platform over the N64, since then Nintendo has yet to provide any sort of system that would cater to their sale of games.

They do not have to honestly, if anything it more competition they have to deal with on the shelves. If you look at the majority of titles sold on the the WII, aside from specialty genres, they are predominantly Nintendo developed games. If they make money off the console being sold, and they make money off of the games they sell on that console, and when you sell 30 million because of the novelty and fun of the system it does not need to attract developers.

Just because people might pay 500$ for the first Next-Gen console that comes out doesn't mean everyone would. Especially if their isn't a glut of launch titles, something Nintendo is notorious for doing in the past.

It will be a step up on the PS3 and X360 only because its hardware was developed 5 years after those consoles. Just don't expect it to be anything cutting edge from any chip set manufactures. If you are talking $250-$300 out the door, minus the controller your looking at anywhere from $175-$240 for the system itself.

Budget wise after shipping, production and assembly you are looking at no more then a $70-$90 reference card from ATI for the graphics, who knows on the main processor/board or optical drive, if it is different from the Wii's.

The smart move would honestly be to go back to a cartridge based format now the flash is more viable in the 8-16gb range.

Who knows though, price will dictate hardware but don't expect a $300 or highly subsidized Nintendo console anytime soon.

 

[Saulot]

Most of the PS3 and X360 games I want are multiplatform games that are also on the PC, so naturally I play them on the PC. I own a Wii for Nintendo's first party titles. I am excited to see what Nintendo is doing and hope that they focus on fundamentals this time around.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]Yeah. Include a GPU like the Radeon 6870 and it will be 5-6 times more graphics capable than the 5 year old Xbox 360 and PS3.[/citation]This is Nintendo. They won't be using top-of-the-line parts. They're going to be using smaller chips with less transistors. They're cheaper and easier to cool.

However, even a very modest modern GPU will outperform the 360 and PS3. But it won't be night and day. Their goal isn't to release the latest and greatest, and smash performance records. Their goal is to remove erase the performance deficit (and then some, perhaps) of their console, so that they can sell more units, and get fresh software from more developers.

Meanwhile, it's backwards compatible (and will probably sell in parallel with the existing Wii units), so they don't alienate companies who are currently cranking out Wii titles.

The good news for everyone is that this might even push Sony and MS to release their next consoles slightly ahead of schedule. It still won't be for a while, either way, but one can hope.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]silverblue[/nom]However, we're already moving well beyond the Wii in terms of how much (or rather, how little) power is used, so perhaps it would suit Nintendo to go with a more powerful version of Fusion; it'd still use far less power than the PS3 and yet be several times quicker. However, AMD don't yet have a low-power part capable of 3D and tesselation, both of which will be necessary... hmm.[/citation]
If a huge customer like Nintendo wanted a chip, AMD could produce a build-to-order Fusion chip. They have Llano, and they have Zacate. They could use design elements from both chips.

They could use 2 Bobcat cores from Zacate, clocked higher. Then instead of using the tiny 80SP GPU from Zacate, they could use a 400SP GPU as seen in Llano. Maybe put two of these chips on one mainboard for a total of 4 bobcat cores and 800SP worth of GPU power.

Anyway the problem there is backwards compatibility. They could go the emulation route, but I really doubt Nintendo is looking to do anything this elaborate. It'll probably just be a heavily-modified, upgraded, faster-clocked variant of their existing designs. Something that could be made to natively (or near-natively) run Wii software flawlessly, approaching 100% compatibility.

 

[geekapproved]

No Blue Ray?

 

[masterofevil22]

[citation][nom]assmar[/nom]You know what I don't want to pay MORE money for? Controllers: they're already expensive enough, que no? Got a decent mouse for less than your standard wireless console controller, and they are going to make them even more expensive? If a game has motion control on the ps3, I turn it off. I haven't invested in the Move yet, but I haven't seen anything to warrant buying those accessories either.[/citation]

3DS..

 

[masterofevil22]

[citation][nom]phatbuddha79[/nom]I have to call BS on this rumor. Nintendo is usually a very conservative co. especially in the last generation or two. It sounded a bit believeable until the controller also has a HD screen? That would drive up the cost way too high and that doesn't fit with Nintendo's pricing attitude.[/citation]

Sorry,

3DS..

 

[ltbob]

[citation][nom]4745454b[/nom]Why would I want a screen on the controller? I need to be looking at the screen, not my hands. [/citation] hmm tbh Hmm.. lol imagine if there was a mini game on the controller while you were waiting for your turn?

 

[kinggraves]

[citation][nom]ltbob[/nom]hmm tbh Hmm.. lol imagine if there was a mini game on the controller while you were waiting for your turn?[/citation]

Not a lot of games take turns these days.

Think more along the lines of what the touch screen on a DS does now. You can use it for press button selection, writing/drawing with a stylus, displaying stats or menus for RPGs. They're taking the lower half of the DS for a controller, then the upper half would be your screen.

I sort of doubt they're going to make it an HD screen though. The screen doesn't need to be great for those purposes and it would likely drive the price up too much. Nintendo doesn't have a problem with expensive control devices, just look at Wiimote prices, but 100 dollars is just too much.

 

[LORD_ORION]

Sounds expensive and too techy... better not be.

Even my mom owns a Wii, but I can't see her dropping $399 on a Wii II console or her caring for an HD touch screen controller either. This is not something the non-gamers who bought a Wii care about.

Retirement facilities have wiis. What the hell would they want with this?

I predict doom; the next Nintendo console will not have the penetration this Wii enjoys.

The next Kinect... now there is something that should be causing some restless nights for the competition. Hardcore gamers scoffed at it, but it really is a fabulous hit with casual gamers.

If Microsoft plays it smart with their next entry level console, they could very well steal the spot the Wii sits in right now.

eg: Flash based kinnect II / 720 with intro price of $279

and then offer something a little more fabulous for real gamers

Hard drive / HDMI based console

Having both casual and real gamers buying your product would be fantastic.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]4745454b[/nom]Why would I want a screen on the controller? I need to be looking at the screen, not my hands. Why would that be a good idea???Is this really WII 2? Or WII 1.5? The article spoke of the video abilities, but not much more. Is this a new product or just bringing the WII up to similar specs as the other current consoles? Seems odd that the WII 2.0 would show up before the other consoles arrive.[/citation]

There are a lot of uses for a screen on the controller. Especially if it's a touch screen. Use your head a bit.

 

[Guest]

Yeah I had a screen on my controller. It was the Dreamcast's VMU (woot ahead of its time again) and it was pretty useless.

 

[Guest]

i doubt anything until i see proof. this generation disappointed me so much from a technical point of view that i will remain skeptical until i see something as great as the dreamcast or game cube again. sure, if somebody will do it, it seems like nintendo would be the most likely one. i always preferred the blurry n64 look over the pixel-mishmash of ps1 and as i just said... i was simply stunned by rogue leader on the game cube... couldn't believe it was real-time. but unlike killzone (which i couldn't believe to pretty much the same degree), it actually was and i was able to play exactly what i saw just... i think roughly half a year later.

 

[dirgle]

[citation][nom]phatbuddha79[/nom]I have to call BS on this rumor. Nintendo is usually a very conservative co. especially in the last generation or two. It sounded a bit believeable until the controller also has a HD screen? That would drive up the cost way too high and that doesn't fit with Nintendo's pricing attitude.[/citation]

Wait!?! What? Did you not just see Nintendo's launch of the 3DS? It kind of goes against everything you just said.

 

[liveonc]

They called the next DS DSi & then 3DS, so why not WII for the next Wii, so they can make a WIII later on?

 

[Guest]

The only mistake Nintendo has ever made is in the storage department. Nintendo has constantly picked the more expensive "oh but harder to pirate" media over cheaper to produce-but-easy-to-copy discs.

What I want to see from Nintendo this time around is to either make it have a blue-ray (how many layers can they put on it now? 8?), or abandon the discs entirely and make it internet-only*. Stick a removeable, user-upgradeable, hard drive on it (ala ps3) or make it do something bizarre for a toy and look for a Nintendo Authorized iSCSI target. Nintendo then pwns the pirates because the games can be updated without patching the console, and the console never has any games "on it."

*By internet only, Japan has FiOS everywhere.

Backwards compatibility will come form putting the disc in the Wii and selecting "migrate to my (nextgen Nintendo Console)" Which then puts the Wii in "boot mode" and the game is played from the new console. Or whatever.

The point is that Nintendo has never been stupid about the hardware, but they are also really conservative when it comes to preventing piracy, picking expensive hard to copy (but easily broken) solutions over cheaper solutions that could be updated.

 

[nottheking]

There's a few of the rumors that I'm being apprehensive over, as well as common misconconceptions I'll have to dispel:
■The "HD screen controller." I can buy a touchscreen on the controller: the Dreamcast's memory cards had screens visible on the controller themselves, for instance. And the DS/DSi/3DS has shown how well touchscreen technology has matured. However, the "high-definition" part would imply a very high resolution: technically it'd have to be at least 1024x720 to be considered "high definition." For small such screens, the highest DPI to be found is on the iPhone 4, and even THAT only hits 960x640... And that sort of DPI also entails a MASSIVE price: think $100-200US per controller.
■Nintendo never takes a loss on the hardware. After all, taking a loss on hardware is the exception, not the rule: only three consoles did that: the Xbox, Xbox 360, and PS3. The Xbox did so as Microsoft was trying to "buy their way into the market." The 360 was much more of the same, but close enough that the first die shrink saw them start a profit on hardware, even ONCE they slashed prices. (i.e, initial 360s may have been $350 to make, but the first revision cut that to 16MB. But it's been only 3 years since the DSi, which'd imply only a 183% increase, to perhaps 44-48MB. Instead we jumped to 128MB. That's a whopping +700% increase, or well over four times the prior rate. This is good news, since previously low RAM quantities were a perrenial gripe for developers on Nintendo platforms. It's why some Wii-exclusive games like Monster Hunter Tri looked as stunning as PS3 counterparts, but were plagued by load screens every 30 seconds.

If we're getting into speculation here, the following, judging from Nintendo's history of decision-making, and their decisions on the 3DS, is what the Wii's successor would resemble, hardware-wise:
■CPU - 4-8 core @2-4 GHz, based on the PPC 970 design used as the basis for the 360 and PS3's CPUs... Should be fully BC with the PPC 750-based CPU that the Game Cube used. (no one's sure where in that spectrum the Wii lands; it could be a beefed-up 750, a toned-down 970, or anywhere in-between) May more resemble a Cell Broadband engine, if developers see more merit in its hybrid "conventional CPU cores plus stream processors" design that it had. If it does, may have only two cores, plus perhaps 8-16 SPEs. On a 32nm process, CPUs would take up 1/8th the size per transistor that they did on 90nm when the 360, PS3, and Wii released back in 2005/6. Since CPU power isn't all that necessary for graphical visuals on a console, this doesn't need to be worlds above even the PS3 to be dominant. (case-in-point: the Xbox's CPU smashed the PS2's and Game Cubes... But it didn't have much impact on graphics)
■Graphics - Almost certainly from ATi, and more reflecting a modern graphics core. Firmware could ensure backwards compatability for stream processors to handle previous fixed-function units, much like how newer GPUs do the same on PCs. If it follows the super-scalar design of modern ATi units (rather than the vector design of ATi's 360 Xenos, or nVidia's modern GPUs) it'd have 160-320 or so shader cores: given that consoles don't have to try anything past 1920x1080, this would EASILY be enough.
■Memory - The safest bet for Nintendo would be to take around 1024MB (1GB) of GDDR5 memory, replacing the 64MB GDDR3 in the Wii, and keeping the remaining Game Cube memory structure (albeit shifting it to not contain the frame buffer) for backwards-compatability purposes. Moore's Law would suggest 2048MB would be best as a "sweet spot" for a 2012 console, but I honestly don't think Nintendo's changed THAT much, and a 1/2 RAM disparity isn't as critical as the 1/5 one the Wii had, as we saw from the PS2 competing with the Xbox.
■Disc Format - I'd be surprised to see Nintendo adopt Blu-Ray: the advantages of its capacity are moot anyway... PC games don't need 'em, now do they? Console games only needed them because they often have dozens of hours of pre-recorded FMVs... which are all in 720/1080p HD. So the game becomes secondary on the disc, to what is basically mostly an HD movie. I also would be surprised to see Microsoft buckle down and license Blu-Ray: remember that the IP is owned by Sony, their competitor.
■Internal Storage - I honestly wouldn't be sure what Nintendo would do here. They may finally go with a hard drive, but knowing their focus towards cheaper hardware in many places, I'd not expect it to be big. They may decide to still stick with Flash memory, just more of it, such as 8GB: The Wii's design very much spoke that it was designed to fit into the cramped apartments of urbanites in Tokyo, rather than the well-ventilated, spacious entertainment centers of America or Europe.
■Controller - I honestly won't say much here. It could very well skip the touchscreen: after all, almost ALL rumors for the Wii's (then only known under its code-name "Project Revolution") controller all pointed to it being a large touchscreen, thanks to the DS's success. Naturally, as they often have done, (barring the Game Cube) their controller design surprised everyone. For the "Wii 2," I'd say all bets are off here.

[citation][nom]amk09[/nom]I would rather pay $500 for a next-gen console that has substantial hardware upgrades than $300 for one with smaller "incremental" upgrades. IMO it would be beyond stupid for them to release a console that didn't destroy the xbox 360/PS3..[/citation]
You have things backwards: making a pricer console yields the "incremental" upgrades over the competitors: simple time and Moore's Law are what bring you the substantial upgrades. Typically, you can, if you're a system builder, spend perhaps 40% more (such as going from $250->$350US in hardware costs) to get 40% more power... Or you can wait a single year and get it for the same $250US.

[citation][nom]Yuuki[/nom]The only mistake Nintendo has ever made is in the storage department but they are also really conservative when it comes to preventing piracy,[/citation]
You're very right to note that when it comes to many choices, "conservative" has been the word that distinctly marked Nintendo's many business choices, especially when it comes to things that later are seen as bad moves.

However, I'd note that, especially as seen on the N64 but on other consoles, the storage medium wasn't their only bad choice: they've also been not-so-great in terms of their RAM selection, also owing to conservative decision-making. Nintendo's consistently shown a distinct paranoia over the semi-flexible prices of RAM, which, unlike other computer hardware, partly behaves like a commodity; (such as oil) over time, yes, the price comes down, but many of us enthusiasts here will remember a couple years back, when DDR2 and other RAM prices went UP and stayed there for a long time. This goes with Nintendo's insistence to always make a profit on their hardware: they don't want RAM prices to change and make that profit disappear.

As a result, each console has had less RAM than it really needed in order to properly compete: it's actually one of the chief weaknesses of the Wii, either directly or indirectly. (technically, the only thing stopping the Wii from doing a game in 1080p is its fixed 1MB framebuffer, a holdover from the Game Cube. Simply expanding that would've changed everything, and made the Wii a fully HD-capable console)

As I'd noted above, those hoping Nintendo will correct from their mistakes have some good signs in the 3DS: as I noted, it bucked following Moore's Law straight from the DS and DSi, giving us a whole 128MB: while still not at the top of the heap for mobile devices, (high-end smartphones typically have 256MB, and the NGP will likely have that as well) it brings it within the range, instead of sitting distinctly below them... and a smartphone comparison isn't fair anyway, since smartphones must keep their OS up at all times for, say, their phone capabilities, while the 3Ds can dedicate its resources fully to games. (for the same reason, the NGP will seriously crush an Android or iPhone)

 

[iam2thecrowe]

i bet the gfx processor is equivelant of an 8800gts

 

[zak_mckraken]

Anything that points towards a new generation of consoles gets me excited.

 

[wavebossa]

screens in controllers make no sense. We are humans, we have 2 eyes that we cannot indiviually control (unless ur a freak), having a screen in a controller is about as much help as having your keyboard tell you how much ammo you have (logitech....)

Its a stupid idea, and Nintendo is not stupid, they wont do this.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]wavebossa[/nom]screens in controllers make no sense. We are humans, we have 2 eyes that we cannot indiviually control (unless ur a freak), having a screen in a controller is about as much help as having your keyboard tell you how much ammo you have (logitech....)Its a stupid idea, and Nintendo is not stupid, they wont do this.[/citation]
Actually it worked well on the Dreamcast when developers took advantage of it. It could allow you to do things in secret, that other players in the same room can't see. It could also allow you to do things on your own (level up a character, etc) without hogging screen real estate.

But these days there's less local multiplayer and more online play, so it's not as important. The idea had a lot of merit 12 years ago. Now I think it would be kind of a waste.
[citation][nom]nottheking[/nom]I can buy a touchscreen on the controller: the Dreamcast's memory cards had screens visible on the controller themselves, for instance.[/citation]Only the VMUs had displays. Regular memory units did not. But there wasn't enough of a price difference for me to buy anything but VMUs, really.

Anyway, nottheking, I think that's a rather odd combination of CPU and GPU. 4-8 relatively powerful PPC cores, with a 320 shader-equipped GPU? Even a 6570 has 480 shaders.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

If the launch would be this summer I would very much consider buying my first ever console despite being a pc gamer since my 386 replaced the amiga 500

 

[pozaks]

Making a console just a bit more powerful than the 360/PS3 is really cheap at this point, and MS & Sony are nowhere near ready to release a new console, and when they do it really won't be much of an improvement; the programmable pipeline was such a huge leap that the new DX10/11 stuff will seem incremental.

So Nintendo gets to waltz in, make a profit off each console, have the most powerful console for at least a year or two, and start chowing down on franchises that were assumed to never be destined for one of their consoles, all the while sporting a fancy new system-moving gimmick like a touchscreen controller, and bathing in cash for years to come.

And in the Eight Generation, Nintendo did deliver unto its rivals a mighty butthurt. And it was good.