Topic: NX aparantly not as powerful as PS4 rumour. Discussion on good/bad things this could mean.

Plot twist - It as powerful as the Xbone

@kyuubikid213: You know what? If it's one thing I've learned about "discussing" things on internet forums, it's that nobody can ever be wrong. You are the perfect example of that. Even when presented with FACTS, bold-faced FACTS, you still accuse me of being the one tampering with the data. Like...really?

Dude...you don't have to get so defensive and unreasonable. I love the Wii U and its games. But that doesn't change that its launch games were mostly iterative and samey. Now, if you don't consider a game that had already been on 360/PC for 2 or 3 months before it came out as a Wii U "launch" game as samey, then I really can't help you. Yes, PS4 and Xbox One also had some re-releases and things like that, but ultimately, Wii U had MORE. To the point that almost 100% of its third-party lineup was over 2 months old. Them's the facts, kid, and if you can't accept that, it's not my problem.

Bottom line: I never changed my perspective. You did that. My statement has remained the same. You changed it. No matter what I say, you're not going to listen to reason. So, you know what? You just have a nice day, ok? Good luck out there, kid.

@rallydefault: It's ironic that you started your response like that.

Maybe I came across as arrogant or something. I dunno. I'm just saying, it's weird that you say the Wii U's launch titles are iterative and samey.

First, about the facts. I Googled and found those lists from IGN about each consoles launch titles. If anything, that's bold-faced fact, right? Well, by looking at those lists, we can see that the Wii U's launch wasn't any more or less samey and iterative than the PS4 and One's launch library. I know that the titles like Arkham City, Darksiders II, and Mass Effect 3 were late to the party on the Wii U. I'm not saying otherwise. However, Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed launched at the same time (or very close to the same time) as on the other consoles.

Second, the iterative and samey launch. All of the launches were equally as "samey". The PS4 and One launched with each only having 3 games that weren't "iterative" or "samey". Your statement makes it look like the PS4 and One launched with completely new titles whereas the Wii U didn't. Again, looking at the list here (pulled from IGN), The PS4 launched with 3 new games, the One launched with 3 new games, and the Wii U launched with 8. Are they all great new games? No. Do we even talk about half of these anymore? No. I never heard anyone talk about ESPN Sports Connection or Game Party Champions, but that doesn't change the fact that they're "new" games as far as your argument is concerned.

Third, your perspective.

Here you say that most of the games released on the Wii U were very samey to what was already out there while the PS4 and One had completely new IPs or new third party games. Duh, it's highlighted. But the Wii U also had that. While, yes, it does have ports of older games, (as mentioned above) the Wii U did get Assassin's Creed III and Black Ops 2 on time. Two brand new third party games. On top of that, there are the 8 new IPs that came out on the Wii U as well (look at the list again).

Ah, see, that list LOOKS nice, but what you don't mention is that MOST (if not all, actually...) of the third-party games released for the Wii U's launch were released up to MONTHS before on already-existing platforms, whereas the third-party stuff on PS4/Xbox One were brand-new, for the most part. So, yea, that kind of makes all of those games "samey" in my eyes. Unless you were 100% a Nintendo-only gamer, chances were you already played or watched those games.

So, yea, that kills the comparison entirely. So, I'm sorry - you obviously put way more effort into that rebuttal than I would have, but your entire argument is flawed and actually serves to prove my point. The Wii U had, at launch, VERY LITTLE that was entirely new. That point is now shown stronger than ever.

I didn't mention it because we all already knew that and I did acknowledge it in later replies. Again, look at the list to see what was launched that was "entirely new".

I wasn't getting defensive and unreasonable. I will have a nice day, though. See you around.

So I've been reading up on the history of development of the Wii and Wii U, and I'm really starting to realize that this was bound to happen from the start. Genyo Takeda, the director of Nintendo's hardware division, seems to be pretty adamant about not focusing on powerful hardware, but instead affordable and efficient hardware with other unique gameplay aspects.

Ah hindsight, the super power to instantly understand and know how a situation could have been handled after it's happened.

Then we should be calling for his head instead of Iwata's or Miyamoto's. Or all three, since they let him do that. Why can't they just do unique gameplay within the games themselves instead of designing hardware around them?

The complaints about unique hardware from Ninty doesn't hold with me since stuff like the rumble pack, d-pad, shoulder buttons, analog stick, wireless controllers have became the standard for games because of them.

Well before they took standard features and improved upon them. With the Wii and Wii U, it's just them throwing something at the wall to see if it sticks.

I think if the price point is aimed at (or sub) $250 USD (£180 GBP) then the power won't be too much of an issue as it was with the Wii, WiiU was hurt by the controller causing a high launch while not being a powerful device at the same time. Any gimmicks need to fit into this price target IMO.

@Operative: Yea, the Wii/Wii U stuff was pretty different from just adding a rumble feature or wireless to an already existing controller. Though I will say, @arronishere has a point with the analog stick (though who truly deserves credit for the analog stick itself is debatable, Nintendo was certainly the first company to make it standard on a home controller) - that was a pretty big innovation for home console gaming, and I remember how divisive it was amongst my friends. Heck, to this day I still insist on playing any 2D platformer with the d-pad, and if the game doesn't support the d-pad, I don't buy it lol

But yea, these trends that we've been moving through in the past decade or so are all over the place. Motion gaming....well, it did work for the Wii, initially, but now seems to be mostly dying off. 3D? Eh...I don't know, really. The 3DS is doing great, but most people say they don't even use the 3D capability. 3D TVs aren't exactly the hot item anymore, and I don't really hear about many games being designed with it in mind. And now VR... some people think it's really going to take off, while others (including some respected game devs) think it's just another fad.

What really attracts us to gaming? Is just holding a nice comfy controller all that you need to enjoy a system? I know I fit into that camp. Give me a Dualshock pad and a Metal Gear game and I can have fun for hours. No need for gyro or microphone or touch or any of that - I just want to experience the gameplay through the button inputs because I feel that gives me the most immediate and tactile control. Maybe a return to this basic line of thinking is what Nintendo needs for NX.

We can, but Nintendo doesn't need to make hardware if they are going that route.

In my opinion, Takeda was correct when he said we are getting diminishing returns on increasing processing power. HOWEVER, those returns are still notable and significant in today's day and age, so Nintendo needs to do what they can to keep up with it, whilst also working on new ideas like the Wii remote or Dual Screens to compensate for the diminishing returns.

Well I'd argue that being efficient is the goal of pretty much everyone these days. When the Wii launched Nintendo were the only ones doing that. Every year you'd see bigger and bigger capacity PSUs on the market. It was a bit nuts. These days? Every GPU and CPU manufacturer is aiming for lower power consumption. It's at the point now where Apple is even getting away with laptops that are cooled entirely from the casing. Or boxes smaller than the Wii that have pretty decent GPUs thrown in them. I mean the performance in them tanks under load but it's heading in that direction.

Well the thing about VR is that for a start it's not a "gaming system". It's an alternative to a TV or monitor. Even if it catches in a big way it'll catch on only as a device that is supported as well as the TVs that already exist. And I don't see how that would change in a hurry given how it can't really replace a TV/monitor. The second problem with VR is the same problem that existed with 3D. Nobody likes the goggles. You play games or watch a movie and you just want to sit back and relax. Harder to do that if you're tethered to a box.....

@Skywake
I think the reason 3D failed wasn't the glasses, but the results you get from wearing them. The 3D was always a tint bit fuzzy.
VR however you get an experience very much unlike 3D.
It wont be for everyone at the moment but if can you remember a time when we never thought our grandparents would never use computers, now there all over Skype!
I can see a time when VR will be used to put us in touch with loved ones to another level. Thats when it will become attractive.

Nintendo are a generation behind on power..but a generation in front on gameplay. Only 10 million people prefer gameplay to graphics. Sad state of affairs tbh.

@DjLewe78: Oh don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it's not going to be a pretty big part of the landscape. Infact I'm pretty damn sure it will be fairly popular. All I'm saying is that I don't think it will replace TVs and monitors because of the fact that VR is, by its very nature, very isolating. People are not going to watch the footy with a VR headset. So it will always be a niche market, it's just a question of how big a niche it'll be.

And for big gaming studios? It's a bit of a chicken and the egg sort of things. Ultimately though these VR headsets are using HDMI. So it's not like there's much of a need for any of them to create their own device. Technically you could use a VR headset on any of the current consoles. So I don't think VR impacts what the NX will or won't be because I highly doubt any of them will include it in the box.

@GrailUK: Regardless of whether or not that statement is "true" (and there are plenty of games on other systems with excellent gameplay), it is a bit sad to see people completely unwilling to even give Nintendo a try. Very stubborn and narrow-minded, those people are. Maybe some of them really wouldn't enjoy Nintendo's games no matter what, but I would wager a fair amount would get great enjoyment out of some Wii U titles if they had just given them a shot.

The same can be said about Wii U owners refusing to try PS4/Xbox...ha

To be fair though the Wii U did get Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, CoD and Batman. A nice little mix of the best of third parties. Sure there is other stuff but even then the games the Wii U does have are a fairly decent sampling. While on the other side of the ledger PS4/XBOne/PC owners who turn their nose up at Nintendo haven't got and will never get Pikmin, Mario, Splatoon, Kart, Smash and Zelda. It's very one-sided.

......... although obviously I agree. Having as broad a potential library as possible is by far the best way to go about it.

I'm interested in how they can use 16GB of memory. If it were true, then hell yeah to it-- I just want to know what the results will be. Two CPUs? Two GPUs? Is there a GPU that can work 12GB of dedicated memory?

In all honesty, Nintendo will be DOA if the system isn't more powerful than the PS4. Nintendo showing off their new system might just spur Sony and MS to reveal their consoles early. Their new system needs to be more powerful than a PS4 at least 1.5 times. Their GPU has to be on par with a Nvidia 970 with 4GB of VRAM.

Two CPUs? Well no, they shouldn't really need more memory. That memory is shared. Also more than on CPU, physically or otherwise, isn't exactly a new thing. The last single core console released was the Wii. Every other machine since then has been somewhere between 3 and 8 cores.

For GPUs it's a bit more complicated. Unless they do it some radically different ways the more GPU cores you have the more memory you need. Not because you need "more memory" but because GPUs don't typically share memory. So you'd have extra VRAM there but it wouldn't really be "extra". You'd still hit the same limits. 2x 2GB GPUs don't give you "4GB" of VRAM, you get 2GB. And more to the point I highly doubt they'd go down that road. It's ridiculously hard to optimise for it....