Wii U to Launch December 8 in Japan

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
A screen on the controller for a console connected to a bigger screen. So which one are you supposed to look at and who thought this was a good idea? Does ANYONE look at the controller when using a console?
 
No U.S. release date? Dec 8 is kinda getting late in the holiday season. Hopefully the storage is expandable via SD card. Also, too much money. Hopefully, it comes in at $299 (black version), but I'm thinking $399 is correct. Good luck Nintendo. Late start, high price, you'll need it.
 
Hah! Good luck trying to sell them because ever since E3 , people were disappointed by pricing, system specs, the clutter, sorry but I am sure other people will agree! With tablets out there, faster consoles, and price competition, it just wont do it. I am sure this will hurt Nintendo Ltd. even more!
 
specs for the Wiiiiiii U say that it has an amd R700 gpu. The R700 core was the 4000 series... so not dx11. One again Nintendo fails to deliver on the graphics when the option is there to not do so.

They also have an "optical drive will support a new proprietary disc format that can store up to 25GB — similar to Blu-ray discs." *cough* Bullsh!t !! *cough*

I'll spend $500 on a new video card or $1000+ on a new rifle but $350 for an already outdated console? no thanks!

PC does what nintendont....
 
Nintendo just pulled an Apple, selling last years tech at a premium price with nothing really new except for an optional tablet controller.

Regardless, a lot like Apple it will still probably sell very well.
 
No, what made the Wii great was new playstyle (at the time) and the price point. I don't think they are far off the mark. Microsoft & Sony will still charge 500+ for thier new machines next year, and of course these will drop in price by that point. Wii doesn't try to be the tech leader, so why start now. They know what their doing, and they have the sales history & market share to prove it. Btw, I have all three, and I still play Wii Sports.
 
[citation][nom]LaHawzel[/nom]I like how this article doesn't mention the fact that extra controllers cost something like ~$172 USD. One hefty price tag.[/citation]
It is a hefty price tag, but I doubt most people would buy a second tablet controller. The last I checked only one of those controllers can be used at a time per console.
 
Apparantly the U in "Wii U" stands for U-turn. Its what you do when you see it.
 
[citation][nom]m32i3289[/nom]A screen on the controller for a console connected to a bigger screen. So which one are you supposed to look at and who thought this was a good idea? Does ANYONE look at the controller when using a console?[/citation]
I don't think it's intended to work like that, contrary to what many people seem to believe. One of the biggest strengths of the controller is a concept called asynchronous gameplay, which allows two users to have their own game experiences while playing against each other or in co-op.

I think this Rayman Legends demonstration is a good example of what the controller is capable of:
http://www.ign.com/videos/2012/06/06/rayman-legends-wii-u-developer-demo-e3-2012
 
[citation][nom]wes629[/nom]No, what made the Wii great was new playstyle (at the time) and the price point. I don't think they are far off the mark. Microsoft & Sony will still charge 500+ for thier new machines next year, and of course these will drop in price by that point. Wii doesn't try to be the tech leader, so why start now. They know what their doing, and they have the sales history & market share to prove it. Btw, I have all three, and I still play Wii Sports.[/citation]

So you are still playing the game that came with the console... almost 10 years ago. You see people... this is why EA keeps selling the same game and just changing the number at the end of it! Cause people keep playing 10 year old games and trying to pawn it off as still fun. Your lack of demand in criteria for a game keeps the game makers and the console makers making the same stuff! If we dont demand better graphics AND game play by not buying stuff that looks like garbage we end up with "call of duty: ancient warfare 10: the french revolution (Bastille edition)" with the same dx9 graphics and zero story line! Then that polished turd gets ported to pc and my high end graphics card goes to waste because there arent any games on the market that actually push it cause they're all crappy console ports!

Its like the new car syndrome. You get a new car and its all fun and new and cool then 10 years later its old and busted and boring so you go get a new car and it starts all over again.
 
The prices are higher than I expected and the console will arrive later than I expected.

The black console would be nice...
32GB might be nice if I ever use space on a console (unlikley though) plus the console has an SDHC memory card slot so not that important.
I could do without those stands...
I don't think the premium version offers enough for the extra $60, I might get the basic version. (IF I even decide to get one...)
I'm actually leaning toward the X-Box 720 for this coming generation.
 
[citation][nom]shin0bi272[/nom]specs for the Wiiiiiii U say that it has an amd R700 gpu. The R700 core was the 4000 series... so not dx11. One again Nintendo fails to deliver on the graphics when the option is there to not do so. They also have an "optical drive will support a new proprietary disc format that can store up to 25GB — similar to Blu-ray discs." *cough* Bullsh!t !! *cough*I'll spend $500 on a new video card or $1000+ on a new rifle but $350 for an already outdated console? no thanks!PC does what nintendont....[/citation]


I'm tired of people compare console to PC in terms of specs. Because consoles are locked down in terms of parts they can make games with better graphics on less powerful specs then for the PC.
 
I'm tired of people thinking that consoles can achive one and a half times (or even two times) the performance with the same hardware a PC could have.

The difference achievable in performance is negligible. The difference in coding care isn't.
 
[citation][nom]shin0bi272[/nom]specs for the Wiiiiiii U say that it has an amd R700 gpu. The R700 core was the 4000 series... so not dx11. One again Nintendo fails to deliver on the graphics when the option is there to not do so. They also have an "optical drive will support a new proprietary disc format that can store up to 25GB — similar to Blu-ray discs." *cough* Bullsh!t !! *cough*I'll spend $500 on a new video card or $1000+ on a new rifle but $350 for an already outdated console? no thanks!PC does what nintendont....[/citation]

Nintendo is not here to give a high-end gaming experience and if you expected that from them, you obviously aren't familiar with what Nintendo does. Nintendo offers a cheap gaming experience. The Wii U will be powerful enough for good 720p/1080p gaming and that's all that it had to do. The point of it is a different experience from the higher-end consoles through the interface and style, not by being more expensive with high-end hardware.
 
[citation][nom]hate machine[/nom]Nintendo just pulled an Apple, selling last years tech at a premium price with nothing really new except for an optional tablet controller.Regardless, a lot like Apple it will still probably sell very well.[/citation]

$300 for a console like that is not a premium price. An extra $50 for the $350 deluxe set is not a bad value at all given what it offers, although I think that the basic set would be better-priced at $275. This is nothing like what Apple does especially considering that they haven't been using outdated tech in their new computers for quite a while. The current Macs and Macbooks use Sandy and Ivy Bridge CPUs and Fermi/Kepler GPU-based graphics cards.
 
[citation][nom]Filiprino[/nom]I'm tired of people thinking that consoles can achive one and a half times (or even two times) the performance with the same hardware a PC could have.The difference achievable in performance is negligible. The difference in coding care isn't.[/citation]

Consoles tend to use far more optimal code that makes a quite significant difference in performance to a PC with a much heavier operating system, much heavier drivers, much less efficiently coded games, and that's just some of the examples. PCs can have the hardware to make up for that and still get incredible performance, but the difference in efficiency is still huge.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Consoles tend to use far more optimal code that makes a quite significant difference in performance to a PC with a much heavier operating system, much heavier drivers, much less efficiently coded games, and that's just some of the examples. PCs can have the hardware to make up for that and still get incredible performance, but the difference in efficiency is still huge.[/citation]
You can try to write as many times as you want the word "heavier" and "much", but the reality is that the number of system calls made and the number of context changes does not affect that much, nor the drivers are performance hogs. Windows on the other hand with its Direct3D (Xbox 360 uses a derived API) may well be as Valve showed and now they will try to mitigate Direct3D lower performance.
 
[citation][nom]Filiprino[/nom]You can try to write as many times as you want the word "heavier" and "much", but the reality is that the number of system calls made and the number of context changes does not affect that much, nor the drivers are performance hogs. Windows on the other hand with its Direct3D (Xbox 360 uses a derived API) may well be as Valve showed and now they will try to mitigate Direct3D lower performance.[/citation]

The difference in performance, snappiness, and memory consumption between even small Linux distributions such as TinyCore (runs better with 64MiB of RAM than Windows XP does with 512MiB and otherwise identical hardware, Windows 7 can't match it unless it has at least 2GiB) and Windows XP is huge, let alone compared to much heavier OSes such as Vista, 7, and 8. Using something that is similarly small as well as highly optimized for the hardware is even better.

Graphics drivers on Windows can use far more memory than a console's entire OS needs. The games on Windows that are ported from the consoles use several times more memory than they need on the consoles even when you play on comparable settings and they need much more CPU performance to run those comparable settings, the graphics performance is undoubtedly also poor in comparison to a console that has similar graphics hardware just like everything else is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom