News Article

Wii U Striking Balance Between Performance and Price

Posted by Trevor Chan

Won't "dramatically" outperform PS3 and 360

With rumours of the Wii U's technical specs being significantly higher than those of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, it's easy to pin our hopes up too high and expect something that simply isn't. After Shigeru Miyamoto's conversation with GameSpot at E3, it only sounds even more realistic that we should keep our hopes firmly grounded.

When asked how important hardware power is to Nintendo, Miyamoto's response clarified the kind of balance that the company is trying to achieve while acknowledging that consumers will impose certain spending limits:

Nintendo is an entertainment company. We're very sensitive to pricing because people have generally only a certain amount of their spending that they'll devote to entertainment. And if you're talking about parents buying something for kids, there are certain price points where parents may be willing to or not willing to purchase a certain product... But at the same time, you have these technological advances, and you have the needs of being able to take advantage of that technology, and those result in increasing costs and things like that. And so I think that in terms of companies that really look very carefully at what is the best balance between price and possibility in terms of the hardware, Nintendo is the company that's going to probably pay the most attention to striking that right balance.

The Wii U isn't the first time Nintendo has been creative with its chosen control method, and the Wii U controller might be a sign that Nintendo has behaved a bit ― in the words of Miyamoto ― " reckless" with its latest hardware design. Despite all the fancy components that make up the Wii U, it seems having room to experiment with ideas is far more important than getting one up on the technical specs of rival consoles.

So when you look at what we're trying to do this time, which is I think maybe to a certain degree somewhat reckless, because we're trying to include this somewhat kind of tablet-like device--this controller with the screen. We're trying to do that by finding the right balance between the CPU and the GPU, the graphics processor, and bringing all of that together with the ability to take advantage of the HD capabilities of the system, and wanting to do the most that we can on that front as well... We're very sensitive, of course, to trying to do all of this at an appropriate price. So I don't know that we would be able to sit here and say that it's going to necessarily dramatically outperform the systems that are out now. It's part of the balance that we strike in terms of trying to find entertainment that is new and unique.


From the web

User Comments (82)



nmozdzier said:

But Nintendo also has to get out there and hold it's own against Sony and Microsoft's new consoles, coming out in the years to come.



bro2dragons said:

If it matches current HD hardware, that's all I need. If it exceeds it in the slightest, consider me stoked. The price s ultimately more important to me, and knowing they have that in mind is a bit reassuring. Not that I doubted, though. They have a history of doing things on the cheap.



Ryno said:

"They have a history of doing things on the cheap."

What history are you referring to? If just the Wii then yes.



Token_Girl said:

This makes sense. The Xbox and PS3 really just became affordable in the past 2-3 years for most people. I don't think something that's a massive jump ahead at the $300 price point would be possible by next year. Certainly a machine somewhat more powerful is nice. Considering most 3rd party multiplatform games will probably still be made on Xbox first and not properly upscaled for the PS3 or WiiU (and the Xbox 720 and PS4 will blow it out of the water, no matter what), it really doesn't matter if it's significantly more powerful, really.



Mandoble said:

That's interesting. Two years ago "nobody" did care about the lack of power of the Wii compared to the others, now everybody says, oh, well, I'll be happy if WiiU at least has same power of XBoX or PS3. The fact is that both, PS3 and XBoX are still way behind current gaming PCs in performance and that both of them will try to catch up with PCs mostly because most third party companies create games for PC/XBoX/PS3. That means that next gen PSX,XBoX### might be expected to be as powefull as today's PC rigs in might be 2 years which means that WiiU would compare the same to them as current Wii to current PS3/XB. And then again it will happen that there will be no way to port third party games from PC/XBoX/PSX to the WiiU.



MitchVogel said:

If the Wii u is just on par with the consoles of today, it's going to be seriously left behind after the other companies' new consoles launch. Hopefully there will be more quality control over the shovelware this time around.



Ryno said:

"Hopefully there will be more quality control over the shovelware this time around."

Wha.... I cannot wait to play Carnival Games in HD!



jerryo said:

guys this console ain't going for less than 350! if it does it will make history!

btw, even last years ati card, is MUCH better than 5 year old tech. when some people complain about the tech being "only" directX 10.1 equivalent tech, i don't think they realise the large performance difference between 10 and 9. the only reason 10 "failed" is because vista was a crappy OS and the amount of people using vista was tiny and still is compared to the amount of win7 and xp users. That is the only reason why we didn't see even more dx10 games. ofc it makes sense for shigeru to say that. because visually things can't really be pushed much more than what dx10-11 offers. so yeah, in that sense do not expect 50% more.. that would be WAY too much. but don't underestimate the capabilities either.

even the new consoles of the competitors in 2 years won't be dramatically better than what we see today. they will at best be dx11 equivalent, which is not really that much far off.. apart from shadow calculations.



Chrno-x said:

I hope they will not repeat the same stupid mistake like with the Wii, sorry but for me it was hillarious, the rumours about the CPU that has the Power of 2.5Ghz and the painful truth of only 726Mhz(like the old Xbox), i'm not a fanatic of super powerful devices with tons of cores inside but for god sake Nintendo it's 2011, if you make the same like with the 3DS that cost you only 101$ and you sell them for 250$ then sorry but i'm not buyed anymore(the power of 3DS is good, but for me it should be even better, because of the price i think that 3DS should have the price of 200$ from the beginning) i know i know Nintendo is not as Big as Sony or Microsoft, they can't afford to sell their hardware for free(yes i'm talking about VIta's price of the cheaper version), but c'mon where's the time of Game Cube and Game Boys? Game Cube was almost 2x powerful as PS2 and they sell it for 199 bucks at launch! and soon it costed only 99$ and Game Boys? Game Boy Color costed at launched only 70$, GBA price if i remember correctly was 99$ at launch too, so i'm asking Nintendo again where are they see those good prices for parents and most importantly gamers? they're gone....and with that interview i have bad feelings that Nintendo will repeat the same mistake as with the Wii(you know, big third party titles for "core" gamers only for about a year or two of the Wiiu lifespan and then again as with the Wii it will mostly Nintendo and it's first party devs bringing few good games in a year, the rest will be some party crap like always...)



erv said:

He's not saying anything, just making clear that comparing numbers on a sheet of paper makes no sense. He's right.

I do hope, however, that the wiiU will be very powerful so it can handle the future really well. But power or not, I just want the great games I can play. Bring it, please.



WolfRamHeart said:

"We're very sensitive to pricing because people have generally only a certain amount of their spending that they'll devote to entertainment."

Right and that is why the 3DS was priced at $250.



motang said:

I'm not really sure if I want it to out perform them, I just want it where I can play HD games and Nintendo games on one, so I don't have to swap systems like I am now between the Wii and the PS3.



NintyMan said:

If the Wii U was a massively powerful system with a massively high price or a reasonably powerful system with a reasonably portioned price, I would take the latter, and so would the average consumer. Of course, you will have some gamers that would want to have the Wii U be the most powerful thing on the market, but with power comes price, and that would hurt Nintendo more than peoples' perceptions of the 3DS's price. There were game systems in the 90's that were very powerful for their time and yet their prices were outlandish. Wii U cannot be the same way. It's great that Nintendo is looking for a moderation between the two. More than anything, it needed HD, and it will. Now if they could just get the price right, then it won't be as bad compared to if it was the 50% more powerful Wii U we discussed earlier.



Ristar42 said:

I dont think Nintendo have been about producing the most 'powerful' hardware for some time. The Gamecube's graphics could look equal to or perhaps even better than the Xbox or PS2, but the Wii was far more sucessful.

I dont want a PS3 (or 4!) with Nintendo written on the box, I want to see them continue to make innovative, fun video games that offer an alternative to the very similar HD consoles out there already.



tone7888 said:

Personally I'm going to own the next Xbox and Wii U. I love gaming so I don't pick favorites I just save to own the machines I want. The Wii U does not need to be a step ahead in the graphics area. Just keep giving me good gaming alternatives to just hardcore shooters all the time, I play those too but it is nice to be able to pop Donkey Kong into my Wii and have a blast.

Just my two cent.



moosa said:

All this talk about PC technology being so far ahead...
Please, tell me, where are all of these PC games that look dramatically better than what you can get on PS3/360?
Now, tell me where you can get a PC for $300 that will run any of those games.



warioswoods said:

Price is indeed more important than raw power, particularly if Nintendo hopes to keep selling to "non-traditional" gamers who don't want to make gaming a large part of their budget.



edcomics said:

Regarding graphics and power, the Wii U will basically be on the same level as PS3 and Xbox 360. The Wii itself was more like a Gamecube 2.5.



SilverBaretta said:

I'm gonna have to say $350-400 on the price. That way, it won't he too mich higher than the current gen with it's smaller jump in power.



TrueWiiMaster said:

Eh, the Wii won this generation in terms of sales, variety of games, and in my opinion quality of games. It just proves that the technology doesn't make the system. Quite a few NES, SNES, N64, and Gamecube games are among my favorite games ever, despite being made for technically outdated tech. New Super Mario Bros. Wii in no way pushed the Wii to its limits, but it's still one of the best games out there on any system. I'm excited for the new Wii U not for it's increase in power over the Wii, but for the games Nintendo will make on it. I was planning on buying Pikmin 3 as soon as it came out on the Wii, and it being on the Wii U doesn't change that at all.

BTW, can someone tell me how more power than the PS3 can help in a game, other than increasing the draw distance? I mean, if a system can go up to 1080p, how can it get better graphics? After all they don't make a TV with better resolution yet. I could see it helping in little details and AI, but that lies more in the quality of the developer. Some games on current platforms have worse AI than games on past platforms, for example. (Just so you know I'm not really technologically inclined, so this is a serious question)



OldBoy said:

Not surprised and don't really care. Nintendo games were really only lacking HD anyways their graphics/art direction is usually spot on.Do I wanna see realistic textures in a Mario/Zelda game?Err not really!
If it at least matches the PS3 then I'm happy.I don't wish for games to look any more realistic than they currently do.I'd much rather see the horsepower provide better A.I, more on screen characters etc ,than photorealistic decapatations thanks very much.



AltDotNerd said:

The Wii U will be 50% more powerful than the PS3. I'm betting between $300-$400 which wouldn't be too bad. Just takes some saving up.



RedBlueSpot said:

If WiiU comes with 1080p, atleast this gen graphics, REALLY innovative gameplay and at a cheap price ($299) I'll buy it. If next Xbox is cheap and outperforms WiiU in every aspect I'll consider that one instead. So please Nintendo, don't mess this up. Don't trust in the new controller TOO much. Don't forget to up-scale my Wii games too. Please!



BXXL said:

It makes sense... 250 euros for a 3DS is already way too much, and a lot of people are complaining about it, so we can't expect a "mega-hyper-console" sold with a digital tablet for less than 500...

And what would be the point? The graphics can't improve dramatically past a certain limit, and with a 25Gb disc, there's enough space for high-quality games in HD: so, if it's on par with PS3, and the price is somewhere between 300 and 400, tablet-controller included, that's OK...

Otherwise, it would be a niche product, and most of the gamers concerned by that niche are already busy playing on PS360 with a vast library of games, so it would be a failure... Nintendo would be very stupid to go that way, when a good quality/price to please many different kinds of gamers is the best way to go...




I don't want WII u TO COMPETE too much in the power stakes. I want their interesting Nintendo-ey ideas that work well and slightly alter the way we game. Innovation.



Corbs said:

I thought Nintendo was interested in getting more third-party publishers supporting the system. So what's going to happen in a year or two when Sony and Microsoft release new consoles that blow it out of the water and all of that third-party support that Wii U has picked up bolts to the new and more powerful consoles. Then we're right back where we are now with the Wii.



Chrono_Cross said:

What history are you referring to? If just the Wii then yes.

Yes because Nintendo has over priced all of their consoles since the NES and Sony and Microsoft are nowhere near as guilty. amirite?



Mandoble said:

@moosa, these games are everywhere in the PC world, but not yet for PS/XBoX. For these you have many FPS with most of everything scripted, so the usage of CPU is really mininal except for just the visuals. But gaming doent end with FPS or Marios. Imagine a PS3 trying to run a masive TotalWar naval battle, or an ArmA2 mission with 100 squads of infantry/armour/choppers and maximum AI level. With a lot of luck you would get 20 fps with any of these top consoles. And that if you are able to load the game inside, as both of them would require more than 1GB of RAM. You might try also Divinity 2 with max visuals details, but only if you have 2GB. Said that, you are partially right, for these you might need a PC rig of more than 1000€ (or, perhaps, a console of 500€ in two years).



triforceofcourage said:

I'm a bit skeptical about the talk of Sony and Microsoft coming back to blow Nintendo out of the water with tech specs. I forsee them keeping Move and Kinect bundled with the next systems. The price for this newfangled equipment will offset what they can put out in that respect too.

I expect the Wii U to be slightly less powerful than the PS4/720. Only slightly, I think the differences between the companies are shrinking, and while they will all still be different, less so then in recent years. That said, I expect to see many people change from the respective companies they are loyal to.



Corbs said:

After creating a portable system with the power of the Vita, there's no doubt in my mind what Sony's plan will be. And with Microsoft losing ground, they know they've got to come up with something outrageous to stay in this thing.



Ryno said:

"What history are you referring to? If just the Wii then yes."

Yes because Nintendo has over priced all of their consoles since the NES and Sony and Microsoft are nowhere near as guilty. amirite?

@ Chrono_Cross I almost missed your reply to my coment! I don't know why you are bringing up Sony and Microsoft but I will bite. Yes, those companies have overpriced their consoles in their past as well. I remember buying a PSX for $149.99 with one controller and no games! I cannot remember how much I bought my Xbox for just for the one controller and no games. Maybe $250? Don't think I purchased it at the intial launch price of $299.99. Plus, then I had to buy a stupid DVD remote and sensor but at least I didn't have to buy memory cards. To sum up yes, other companies systems are overpriced as well.



Guybrush_Threepwood said:

I don't really care about the price. I just want a Nintendo console with up to date technology this time. The Wii was Nintendo's only console that was totally overpriced in my opinion. But if Wii U can finally compete with the PS4 or the third Xbox it could even be worth 500 € to me.



arrmixer said:

I just want to get the system in my hands... if for the first couple of years wii u gets the good games that the other systems get is icing on the cake for me...
I just appreciate nintendo's wide range of games and innovative use of the products.....
people worry too much about the hardware...



Henmii said:

"Won't "dramatically" outperform PS3 and 360"

Well, he didn't say that. He said: Not necesarily! Wich means that it still could be a lot stronger then PS3 or Xbox360.



KaiserGX said:

Why does it even matter, I think the graphics are good enough as is. Focus on other areas to improve. Like A.I, animation and ect.



Bassman_Q said:

If it is indeed stronger thn the PS360, then I'd assume it'll be about $300-$350.



Chris720 said:

Only problem is, Nintendo are playing catch-up in the HD area, which, to me, really isn't all that important... and besides Nintendo's consoles sell, it's a proven fact. The only way Sony or Microsoft can "blow the Wii U out of the water" is by upping the TV screens resolution to something higher than 1080p so that it looks photorealistic, other than that, all you can do is just upgrade the hardware and wait for the graphics to be updated.

However, in this world with supreme high quality graphics that have to look exactly like real life, what's the point? I don't want to play a game that looks exactly like the real world, I want to play a game that's a game not a photorealistic version in a game.

All this graphic business is a load of crud anyways, it adds a pretty layer, but that's as far as graphics go.



rjejr said:

I agree with $299 and PS3Xbox360 graphics. When the new systems do come out in a few years Nintendo can worry about it then. They are playing catch up and they can't sell a new system for more than $299 - even if it is a little better than the other systems with a cool new Upad controller - b/c the other systems will be $250 by then. There have been plenty of ways over the past weeks to get a PS3 for effectively $199, same for Xbox360. Nobody is buying a Wii ANYTHING for more than $299.



MasterGraveheart said:

Still, performance and power are two different things. Nintendo WANTS to be on par with its competition to incite third partis to want to develop for them, so it's a wise move. 360 and PS3 still have a long time on the shelves, so being this late to the party ISN'T a bad thing since they saw so much success with Wii.

The Wii U will be more powerful than either ofthe other two lugnuts... wait... I used to call PS360 the "HD Lugnuts," but now Wii U is HD. I can't use my mean name anymore! x.x

Ahem, as I was saying,Wii U will be more powerful to give more people more development space. This will make for an easy transition between consoles for developing, which is a good thing.

I still want a 50' range of the controller streaming so I can play anywhere in the house...

Price point: $250.



AlbertoC said:

@43: Nintendo has been known for making a little too many remakes/ relaunches for their games. So, I bet.



zionich said:

It doesnt matter to me what it cost, because if I want it enough, ill save the money for it.



Capt_N said:

I wanna see what MS, & Sony will have their next machines do. But I'm gonna try, & save up starting very soon, for a WiiU anyway.



CerealKiller062 said:

People keep saying that if Nintendo is on par with Microsoft and Sony in terms of graphics, then it is going o be behind in the next generation. What I say is that the graphics war is over. There is no way in this world that graphics can get better. They are at their peak. Any more realistic and I think its going to be like looking through a video camera. The next consoles (if they ever do come out soon) will be emphasized on more games and more special ways to play. Just think about it guys



bonesy91 said:

I don't care if it isn't like the others, I just love Nintendo for being Nintendo and either way, we still get a New console with HD graphics and Nintendos mascots... it's a win win either way.



Wolfenstein83 said:

I agree with others here, as long as there are great games to play, I am there.
Pretty much what bonesy91 said, that's what I think too.



Edwrd said:

Sony just released in Japan a lighter PS3 with slightly lower power consumption, with their pricing losses in most of the PS3's lifetime will they want to make the PS4 so soon? I feel they will push it back further if they can, it depends on what Microsoft is doing probably, not so much Nintendo (yet). And Microsoft released the Xbox 360 Slim just last year in June 2010, its only June 2011 now ...



Chrono_Cross said:


You almost missed my comment? Lol. I totally see what your saying. I remember when the PS3 came out back in 06' and my good friend Randy was so psyched for it. He was telling me how it was $600 dollars but he didn't care because Final Fantasy was going to be so worth it and this and that. He didn't play it much and while he was stuck playing the PS2 instead of its HD hybrid I was enjoying myself playing Wii Sports and Excite Truck.

The PSP was outrageously priced at one time along with the Dreamcast and XBox. you see the thing Nintendo did right with the Wii and DS was the various bundles (even the Gamecube had bundles), whereas I don't remember the competition having these said options. (The Xbox 360 and PS3 do, but I'm speaking more of last generation.)



BulbasaurusRex said:

How much more powerful do we really need to make our game consoles, anyway? I think we're getting to the point where the relative hardware specs don't matter much in increasing game quality, anymore.



moosa said:

@Mandoble #31 Arma 2 does look impressive, but I certainly wouldn't say that it looks remotely "next gen" compared to current games on HD consoles. A lot of people say that RAGE is the most visually impressive game yet, and that's running on 360. The truth is we really are reaching a point of diminishing returns with regards to graphics power in games. Wii U probably won't look significantly better than current HD consoles even if it is a bit more powerful (I'm hoping for the same graphic detail at 1080p and 60fps, but we'll see). Even if Sony and Microsoft's next consoles are a lot more powerful in terms of numbers, there's only so much more developers are going to be able to get out of it purely for visuals, and that extra visual fidelity costs money to produce (HD games cost significantly more to make than Wii games, for instance). And don't forget about what happened this generation when Sony tried to make a console that they considered "next-gen" compared to previous hardware... "$599 US DOLLARS." What's it going to take this time?



WaveBoy said:


I too am fine if the graphical punch is just a bit better or even on par with the PS3.
Hell I'd be happy if half the titles were in flipping 8 - 16 bit. lol

But Reggie did say that 'that' Bird Demo during E3 in an interview said that it was running in real time on EARLY Dev kits....If so, that's incredible. Those bird animations blow away anything seen on the PS3/360 and that fish flying out of the water? even MORE impressive. That's all i need baby, that's all i need. It's incredible.

I don't care about super realistic textures and blah blah....Mario, Zelda and Metroid, Punch-Out, Kid Icarus, Wario Land, Pikmin and so fourth don't need it! Sony on the other hand DOES with their most of their realistic Franchises like Uncharted, Killzone and the like.

As far as realism goes itself, the only realistic titles i even care to play are Resident Evil and maybe Silent Hill....Don't care for the rest. I wan't surrealism, not realism....we already live in the real world, yawn.



Wheels2050 said:

@moosa: As an avid PC gamer, I agree with you that the PC doesn't necessarily offer huge graphical improvements over the 360 and PS3 these days. 10 years ago, when multiplatform games weren't so common, you could definitely see an advantage to playing on PC but these days it just isn't worth the developer's time and money to create higher quality graphical assets for one out of the 3 platforms their game is coming out on.

I do lament that fact a bit, but at the same time it's made PC gaming cheaper - the need to upgrade constantly has decreased, as system requirements are reasonably stable these days. However, as someone said, an experience like the Total War series or 64-player Battlefield wouldn't be possible on consoles, so while the graphics may not improve on the jump to PC, it opens up many opportunities in different areas.

On topic, I think this is a good move by Nintendo. While they may not compete with the next MS/Sony consoles a few years down the track, if they can make the Wii U better for now it may allow them to capture a large fraction of the market (assuming the game library is good off the bat) who may be reluctant to jump to the other consoles when they get released.

Then again, I don't know that much about marketing so that may be all wrong



armoredghor said:

@KaiserGX actually what is the difference between graphics and animation? i'm curious-they're both just visual aspects.
Also, this whole thing about HD and hardware power. I don't think Nintendo really wants to use those two things but they want to have 3rd parties build games on their consoles. Gearbox said they would have gladly released borderlands on the wii but the processor couldn't handle the massive engine and they would've had to water down the amount of guns, defeating the purpose.



alLabouTandroiD said:

For now it would most likely be enough to be on par with the PS360 systems. I guess 3rd parties won't update the graphics for multiplatform-games much anyway.
Which would mean that Nintendo really would have to do well with the WiiU before the next Sony and MS systems get released. Hardcore gamers have to be convinced that the WiiU is at least as good as these next systems then.

On the price point: I hope the it's going to be below 300 €.



phoenix1818 said:

Why can't they just announce the official specs now?
If it's more powerful than current gen the we will have something to get exited over, if it's the same then at least no one will be dissapointed at launch time.

Every news article I read seems to alternate between saying that this is "significantly" more powerful than current consoles or warning us that we shouldn't have high expectations. Why don't they settle this now, rather than keep us guessing, when they already know the answers to our questions?



paulcmnt said:

@phoenix1818 Because Wii U is going to be Wii all over again. A rather weak console in comparison to the others, with a new control scheme that looks rather promising.

However, given the (not so recent) history of Nintendo, I'll take a wild guess and say that third-party games will once again be rather posh. I know they tried to make it seem like devs are supporting Wii U, but they did the same with the 3DS before its launch. And how many good games does the 3DS have now?

And let's be honest, during the E3 presentation, Nintendo talked a lot but said very little. If they truly had something spectacular to say, they would have made a better presentation with more substance.



KaiserGX said:

@armored. I was thinking graphics in terms of high polygons and really detailed textures and animation just... well running smoother like butter. Like on that Zelda Demo for Wii U how Gohma was moving around while you fight it. Instead of Attack, move it was moving around like a real giant spider would move and attack you. As if it's actually doing random movements and it doesn't look like it's doing the same thing multiple times. Kind of hard for me to explain.

Really what I want is your attacks and stuff not to look so static.



phoenix1818 said:

@lzbirdboy To be honest I would actually prefer Ocarina of Time in HD to 3D. I'll still buy the 3DS version, but I doubt Nintendo would go to the effort of remaking it a second time.



tangram said:

Honestly why are people so obsessed with HD?
HD only implies an higher resolution to what Wii is offering right now. Maybe it's just me but I can't understand why people go crazy about HD.

It seems people only care about HD and don't realize that the "real game" is not resolution or graphic.

WiiU aside from HD will bring better texturing, a new controller and hopefully more support from third parties.

To my mind Wii is only missing more support from third parties (why I don't care as I prefer Nintendo's franchises). Wii is an unique system and I for one won't buy a WiiU in the next 3-4 years.



Wheels2050 said:

@tangram: I'm certainly not a graphics nut (I'm quite happy to play ASCII games) but I cannot deny the appeal of high-resolution gaming. At the expense of good games, then no, but on top of a good game it makes the experience much nicer.

HD in itself cuts down on jagged edges and other such artefacts which can distract from a nice image, but it also implies greater graphics processing ability which can allow effects like anti-aliasing (further reducing jagged edges), fancy lighting and shading and others. Without these sorts of things, immersion in the game world is reduced as occasionally you get jarring reminders that what you're looking at is being rendered by a computer (e.g. a low-resolution or repeated texture popping up amongst otherwise nice-looking ones).

While some art styles don't require those sorts of things, if I was offered exactly the same game in either low or high resolution, I'd take the latter any day, and I think most other people would.



tangram said:

[rant]Back in 16-bit era I played 480x320 resolution or something and didn't complain. What matters is the nature of the game (lasting appeal and gameplay) not pretty graphics.
People just get all pumped-up with graphics. If the point is pretty graphics I'd prefer watching a movie like Avatar or something.[/rant]

Things that excite me about WiiU (ordered from most to least:

  • new controller (loads of potential)
  • renewed third parties support
  • compatibility with Wii (both discs and controllers)
  • HD support

A poll or article about this would be nice (if not done yet)



Themadmonk said:

Innovation, innovation, innovation. If nintendo was concern with just power they could have a power ho. But I think as always are trying I think to give gamers new experiences. Having said that, they realize at some point hardware would need more attention. Of course in the end its about the games.



Blaze said:

I'm very pleased! If it can match the power of a PS3 or 360 then I will be happy, a good console isn't just about power, it's about price and innovation. Plus, this will allow Nintendo to compete with Microsoft and Sony, the pricing is something that is on most people''s minds, not massive power.



SKTTR said:

Even in times of HD we still download prehistoric NES, Master System and C64 games from the Virtual Console... and other people with a 3DS still pay money to download old and grey Game Boy games. And they play and enjoy them!

HD wasn't necessary in the last 30 years of video game history. But now it's coming to Nintendo as an inevitable step in tv screen evolution (note: it's not video game evolution).

All in all it means just that: You get sharper graphics (if you own a HDTV).

I don't know if I need HD just yet. I mean, the Wii U comes with its own screen and the other consoles don't interest me. I think I will update to HD when my old tv dies, but well, that could be another 10 years from now on. That's good for me, since I prefer to get more games instead



Rapadash6 said:

Not sure I care too much what the exact specs are. I mean I'm still amazed by PS3 games so if it's in that realm, I know it'll be enough. How much better could graphics get anyhow? I mean really.



Skogur said:

Well I don't need graphics that surpasses PC, so just a slightly better framerate than Wii and HD will do. The most important part is the new controller and as always Nintendo's gaming masterpieces.



SquirrelNuts said:

I really don't care if Nintendo is blown out of the proverbial water by Sony or Microsoft. I like Nintendo games, I like Nintendo products. There is a pretty descent size market of people who are like me. I never cared about the Wii competing with the other two because I liked it, it has everything that I want. So when the Wii U launches I will get it and most of the games published by Nintendo. You can't play a Mario game on a POS-PS3 or an Xbox. You can't play Zelda or Metroid either. You also can't download kick ass games from back in the NES days on those consoles either. I will be happy with HD Nintendo and they will continue to be a great company for at least a little while. So I ask the question, Why do some of you care so much if they are competing with the other two? Who cares if Nintendo "blows them out of the water"?

P.S. The 3DS is awesome and $250 isn't too steep for what it is.



Varoennauraa said:

I have a bad feeling about this. I'm praying, that they wouldn't screw this up.

I love the touch screen, but I think its already making the console expensive enough to rule out kids at launch, and on other hand you are not going to woo "HC-peasantry" with cheap console, especially as they already have their consoles.

You MUST swallow the console profit making ambitions a bit and make a noticeable jump into next generation. Put some reasonable powerful and forward thinking hardware, and take a little less profit from consoles at this point. Take midrange GPU from upcoming AMD architecture(7850 or something) to go with Power7 and presto, you have a console, that is competitive with anything the others might come up. It would be expensive at start, but could go as affordable as anything they are planning now over the time. They can sell the first 6 months for Nintendo fans, and growing attention from HC gamers would carry them for next two years and at that point they would have cheap platform to sell for birth day present prices.

Nintendo told they have the Wii as a third pillar for the people who find the ready library and cheap price attractive. Thats the one, that they are selling to kids at this point.

Of course there is the factor of man power, the ability to make noticeably more beautiful games and on the other hand, our ability to appreciate them. But there is still at least one big leap ahead(and perhaps real time ray tracing might be achievable after that). At least one console is going to make that jump, and I'd hate to see yet another round of no 3rd parties for Nintendo console, even if I have a PC for playing them.

Of course I shouldn't be so worried, as Nintendo is pretty good at this balance thing, and the garden demo which was not only made in a rush(there was noticeable improvements in its graphics in the show floor inter active demo, compared to the one they showed in the silver screen), but also ran in unfinished platform. Its already good enough to make absolutely stunning experiences, but it might not be easy enough to have multiplatform games, again.

This talking about kids at this point(making the console so cheap they could sell it for kids AT LAUNCH) only makes me a bit nervous, as this might lead into DreamCast situation. With a bit different strategy they could sell the console for kids too just as long as with cheap launch rush, just a bit later.



Mandoble said:

Usually kid's money is parent's money, quite the opposite for teenagers which depend on their own money. Kids are usually way richer than teens.



Raylax said:

Last I checked, the Wii's lack of graphical grunt didn't exactly hurt its sales.



Varoennauraa said:

Check again. Wii isn't doing so good anymore. Wii U won't necessarily get as astronomical lauch(see 3DS) as Wii, so the next gen might be able to kill it on the spot.

Why did I say "see 3DS"? Sonys DreamCast vs PS2 gambit against 3DS with Vita might have worked and it will probably try it again against Wii U.

Why am I not expecting astronomical launch? Because of the tablet. I love it, and I think its a brilliant move and brilliant gaming device, and I expect great things from it, but it will make the console rather expensive at launch. Its not going to sell @ casual and their kids initially, because its expensive and they are not early adopters either, and the gamers are not going to buy a weak and expensive console.


I checked again my self and Wii is doing fine.



Mandoble said:

I do not understand why so many people do care about Wii sales, unless you are buying Nintendo shares of course. Said that, the better Nintendo does in bussiness, the worse for the users. Were Wii keeping a positive rate in sales and you might be waiting 6 years more for the replacement. Were Nintendo games selling not so well, and you might have a decrease in price, more quality titles, less remakes, less shovelware etc, etc. As a matter of fact, the terrific and temporal success of Nintendo with casual users with the Wii became the total frustration for these hardcore gamers supporting the company with the N64 and then NGC.



Varoennauraa said:

Support. That is all.

Wii didn't get the support, because the money was invested on wrong horses. Wii U could get it.



Iggy said:

I hope the price is anywhere around 300-350 i wouldnt mind spending that. But 400+ for a console is just to much in my opinion. Im sure there not going to price it at 250 if the 3DS is still selling for that much. So hopefully they only ask for 100 more bucks and cost 350.



Davidmoreaux said:

I like Nintnedo games and seeing them in HD would be cool I remember playing Super Mario 64 when it first came out and liked how cool and superior it was to the SNES Mario World and same now days with Mario Galaxy compared to Mario 64.



hYdeks said:

if the Wii U comes out and the system is on par with PS3, than I'm sorry but I'm getting a PS3 cause it already has the games Wii U is trying to get developers to push onto that system and the PS3 will be cheaper at that time. All the games announced for the Wii U didn't excite me cause if I wanted those games, I would just buy a PS3. Sorry to say but Nintendo's Wii might be Nintendo best system, that completed hurt them with there old fans.

BTW, I don't ever wanna see another Nintendo remake game. Only reason why I don't want a 3DS is cause so far it feels like a portable 3D N64 with the remakes there doing. I don't wanna play 13+ year old games again!!!!!! ><



CaPPa said:

When it comes to HD consoles it mostly depends what exclusives you want to play. If it's Mario, Zelda etc then it'd have to be WiiU; but if you want to play Uncharted, Killzone, LBP etc then it'll have to be PS3. Multiplatform games will obviously be released on all of the systems.

I'm not sure how much of a price cut the PS3 will get, maybe a $50 drop on the $300 system, as it took so long for the PS3 to actually make Sony any money that I wouldn't think that they'll want to start taking losses on it again, plus they'll already be taking on more losses with the PS Vita. I'm expecting WiiU to come in around $300 - $350 and if it was me then it would take more than a $50 - $100 saving to give up on my Nintendo games (especially as my PS3 didn't even come with a game for $300).

Now I already have the Wii, 3DS, 360 and PS3 at my disposal; so i'm not exactly lacking in options when it comes to games but I will be buying the WiiU because Nintendo's games are my favorites. My top games of 2010 were mostly on the Wii, in fact my top games of this whole gen are mostly on the Wii too; so I just cannot pass up on the chance to play those kind of games but in higher resolution and with what is potentially a revolutionary controller.

BTW, what other N64 remakes are coming to the 3DS other than Ocarina of Time and Starfox 64? I'm happy to play those two games again but in a portable form (the remake of the 13 year old OOT is currently my GOTY on all platforms). The other big Nintendo games have nothing to do with the N64 at all though - Luigi's Mansion 2, Animal Crossing, Super Mario 3DS and Kid Icarus (best looking game ever).

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...