Reggie Fils-Aime points to the PS2 and Wii in defense of the Wii U's power

[Psionic Roshambo]

I assure you, the price of the physical production of the game usually matters little as long as it will sell for 50000% more than production costs. If it costs $0.56 to make one cart versus $0.08 (totally hypothetical numbers) to print out a disc, it ultimately makes little difference when you're selling the game for $50+. What matters is that the carts were very limited in their capabilities due to memory restrictions. N64 carts were limited to a total of 64MB versus the PS1's 650+MB. Developers lost the ability to work with these limitations while doing what they wanted to do, such as including cut scenes and making large games in general, since PS1 games could be multi-disc as well. Because of this, big third parties moved to the PS1, and with the increased success of the PS1, other third parties that it would have made little difference for either way followed suit.

You are exceptionally far off track in assessing why third parties jumped ship with the N64.

64MB carts for the N64 back then where not .56 cents to make.... rotflmao not even close. Try closer to 20$ a pop, a cost that the publishers had to pay. So yeah making the same game on a CD for pennies was the way to go.

But since you think I am so far off the mark with what I am saying perhaps you will take the word of a developer?

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Luis...he_Origins_and_Fate_of_the_60_Retail_Copy.php

"High cartridge prices made Nintendo 64 games expensive, costing upwards of $80 (in 1996 dollars) versus $40 or $50 for PlayStation. Publishers were able to sell games for less because manufacturing costs for games on CD-ROM were much lower than making cartridge copies. Lower software pricing was one of the reasons why Sony dominated the 5th generation of consoles, leaving both Nintendo and Sega eating dust."

So the difference between producing a cart for the N64 and a CD on the PS1 was a little more than 50 cents..... rotflmao

 

[TripleSMoon]

I never said the first party games weren't good. That's putting words in my mouth.

I assure you, the price of the physical production of the game usually matters little as long as it will sell for 50000% more than production costs. If it costs $0.56 to make one cart versus $0.08 (totally hypothetical numbers) to print out a disc, it ultimately makes little difference when you're selling the game for $50+. What matters is that the carts were very limited in their capabilities due to memory restrictions. N64 carts were limited to a total of 64MB versus the PS1's 650+MB. Developers lost the ability to work with these limitations while doing what they wanted to do, such as including cut scenes and making large games in general, since PS1 games could be multi-disc as well. Because of this, big third parties moved to the PS1, and with the increased success of the PS1, other third parties that it would have made little difference for either way followed suit.

You are exceptionally far off track in assessing why third parties jumped ship with the N64.

A minor correction: don't get the "64" in N64 confused with how many megabytes of storage a cartridge had. It was a 64 bit system, but the largest game (I believe) was actually 512MB

 

[Nathan Drake]

A minor correction: don't get the "64" in N64 confused with how many megabytes of storage a cartridge had. It was a 64 bit system, but the largest game (I believe) was actually 512MB

Close. The highest capacity was 512Mb/64MB.

 

[TripleSMoon]

Close. The highest capacity was 512Mb/64MB.

Um, what?

I think I'm going to shut up... clearly this conversation has gone beyond my technical prowess.

 

[Nathan Drake]

Um, what?

I think I'm going to shut up... clearly this conversation has gone beyond my technical prowess.

There's a difference between Mb and MB. Mb refers to megabits, while MB refers to Megabytes. To keep it simple, 1Mb is equal to approximately 125KB. So something with a capacity of 512Mb would be broken down this way:
512Mb * 125KB = 64,000KB which roughly translates to 64MB. Obviously the exact calculations are a touch more precise, but that's an easy way to see it.

With that in mind, Nintendo could at max produce a 512Mb cart, otherwise seen as 64MB.

For reference, game dumps, at least for the likes of the DS, tend to be measured in Mb on the release notes. Just check out any DS release and you'll see that.

 

[TripleSMoon]

There's a difference between Mb and MB. Mb refers to megabits, while MB refers to Megabytes. To keep it simple, 1Mb is equal to approximately 125KB. So something with a capacity of 512Mb would be broken down this way:
512Mb * 125KB = 64,000KB which roughly translates to 64MB. Obviously the exact calculations are a touch more precise, but that's an easy way to see it.

With that in mind, Nintendo could at max produce a 512Mb cart, otherwise seen as 64MB.

For reference, game dumps, at least for the likes of the DS, tend to be measured in Mb on the release notes. Just check out any DS release and you'll see that.

Alright, I think I understand now. Thanks.

 

[RedCoreZero]

I kinda agree, but I don't.2006 Wii released, smartphones and tablets didn't exist or wasn't popular.Casual gamers bought Wii because it was easy to use and gimmicky.The games do matter though, without it, they won't sell, and we know what happens when things don't sell.All of a sudden, third party companies don't want to make it because it's, 'weak'.No, companies don't want to put their games on the Wii U because it's not selling well.

Hardware issues, I don't buy that shit, if it were selling well they would get that shit on there!I can see them porting games for PS3 and 360.Like how they forced ports on the Wii.They will be like:

herp derp.

 

[Mantis41]

To quote Foxi4 from post 89
Raw power isn't everything. More MHz is irrelevant. Stop using power as an indicator on whether or not a console is successful. I'd love to hear your reason for disagreement after all that has been said about this power-means-everything-bulls**t. People need to stop bitching and moaning about lack of power, focus on the games and move on. If anyone gets so bloody upset over a lack of power, or too much power, they really need to do what people call "going outside" once in a while.

I was thinking more of bandwidth than MHZ.
The WiiU has 1GB of RAM available @ around 25GB/s that can be boosted significantly by utilising 32MB of EDRAM.
The PS4 has 7GB or RAM available @ around 176GB/s that can be boosted significantly by utilising a small amount of EDRAM

On paper the differences in available bandwidth are massive.
Bandwidth is used for everything from increase polys, increased colour pallet, large textures, more effects, increased AA, tracking more objects and has a heavy relationship to frame rate. If you have less bandwidth available sacrifices will have to be made.

 

[the_randomizer]

I was thinking more of bandwidth than MHZ.
The WiiU has 2GB of RAM available @ around 20GB/s that can be boosted significantly by utilising 32MB of EDRAM.
The PS4 has 8GB or RAM available @ around 176GB/s that can be boosted significantly by utilising a small amount of EDRAM

On paper the differences in available bandwidth are massive.
Bandwidth is used for everything from increase polys, increased colour pallet, large textures, more effects, increased AA, tracking more objects and has a heavy relationship to frame rate. If you have less bandwidth available sacrifices will have to be made.

I'm done here. There will never be an end to hardware discussions.

People are clearly slaughtering the console just because it's not as powerful as the competition, without even giving it a chance.

 

[ggyo]

Correlation=/=causation.

Just because the weakest console of each generation has sold more hardware does not mean the key for success is weaker hardware. It's possible that more software was possible to develop because weaker hardware means less resources needed to be put into software.

And seeing as the Wii's hardware has sold dismally since 2008-2009, which was right when software stopped being released as frequently for the system, I think it's safe to say the console with the most and best software will always be the most successful.

It's appalling to think a person in the position that Reggie is in doesn't know that. It's almost unquestionable, so it makes me believe he's only saying this to favor media appeal.

 

[xist]

People are clearly slaughtering the console just because it's not as powerful as the competition, without even giving it a chance.

By people are you referring to potential third party developers? Because "people" in general aren't slaughtering the Wii U because it's not as powerful as the competition (most don't even consider it). What they do consider, and the reason the Wii U is getting "slaughtered" is because it's not very interesting and has a shallow range of games, coupled with a ludicrous price point.

 

[Gahars]

I'm done here. There will never be an end to hardware discussions.

Of course not, since, you know, hardware is kind of important. Ignoring the issue isn't going to magically make it disappear.

People are clearly slaughtering the console just because it's not as powerful as the competition, without even giving it a chance.

If that's what you have to tell yourself, well, don't let me or the reality of the situation get in your way.

 

[thewarhammer]

Even so. I don't think there was much in it. This was more like the comparison between the 360 and PS3 with each platform having it's own highs and lows. It was nothing like the performance chasm between the Wii and PS360. The same performance chasm looks to continue into the next generation. The Wii hit at a perfect time in the market and flourished. The WiiU does not have this advantage. I think the statement processing power doesn't matter is flawed.

...of course it wasn't something abysmal as Wii X PS3/360, but claiming that the difference was something like PS3 X 360 clearly says you didn't played some multiplat games. Some games like Just Cause on PS2 compared to it's XBOX counterpart just makes you feel "OMG". Or compare Halo 2 with any of the prettier PS2 games. It's not like Wii against PS3/360, but I have to say it's very close...

 

[SolidSnake95]

I think most people do care about hardware to be honest. For me its not a deciding factor, but to most it is. They want to take adventage of all that the system has to offer. A system that handles blu rays is going to obviously sell a lot better than a system that still uses DVD's.

 

[Mantis41]

...of course it wasn't something abysmal as Wii X PS3/360, but claiming that the difference was something like PS3 X 360 clearly says you didn't played some multiplat games. Some games like Just Cause on PS2 compared to it's XBOX counterpart just makes you feel "OMG". Or compare Halo 2 with any of the prettier PS2 games. It's not like Wii against PS3/360, but I have to say it's very close...

You're probably right, I got on my high horse there.

Still, the difference between 1GB @25GB/s and 7GB @176GB/s is absolutely huge and with both consoles able to boost performance with the correct utilisation of EDRAM the poor WiiU does not stand much of a chance in the years to come. The only thing that will save the WiiU is games, games and more games or a massive difference in price.

 

[naved.islam14]

End users should be interested in playing games; that is what the system is for. The Internet can increase the amount of games you can get. But this wasn't as important as it is today. It sounds like the XBox influenced online gaming since the Playstation and the N64 didn't have internet access. Hmmm... we also know that one of these systems had pretty bad third-party support.

Ever heard of multiplayer?

 

[calmwaters]

Ever heard of multiplayer?

Yeah; you had 2 to 4 friends come over to play with you. None of this internet connectivity was used back then. But the internet now lets you play with those friends as well as a whole slew of other ones. I guess you'll really like it if you love playing with other people. My internet gaming consists of a few Facebook games, in which I spend absolutely no real money for, and Mario Kart (once I finally got my Wii connected to the internet).

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

Correlation=/=causation.

Just because the weakest console of each generation has sold more hardware does not mean the key for success is weaker hardware. It's possible that more software was possible to develop because weaker hardware means less resources needed to be put into software.

Correlation=/=causation

I love double edged swords....

"As with any logical fallacy, identifying that the reasoning behind an argument is flawed does not imply that the resulting conclusion is false"

So while saying that weaker hardware sells better because of X, the logic behind the observation might be flawed but the conclusion at this point in time is almost inescapable.

Seriously Atari launched the 2600 in 1977... We have lots of data points since that time. In almost every single case the result is the same. Home or portable consoles....

 

[Amber Lamps]

PS2 still is awesome. But my take is the Wii U has rolled out better games than the other two competators are launching. So I think this guy is correct. But will it have a larger install base? Probably not. Too many people are addicted to call of duty and other fpses which is sad. Live on Nintendo even if I don't get a Wii U right away. And even if most of their good games are rehashes of rehashes of rehashes.... still better than playing another variation of Quake on a console which is boring imho.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

PS2 still is awesome. But my take is the Wii U has rolled out better games than the other two competators are launching. So I think this guy is correct. But will it have a larger install base? Probably not. Too many people are addicted to call of duty and other fpses which is sad. Live on Nintendo even if I don't get a Wii U right away. And even if most of their good games are rehashes of rehashes of rehashes.... still better than playing another variation of Quake on a console which is boring imho.

110% agree about being tired of FPS games, been playing them on the PC since Doom. Not that I still don't enjoy a good one when it launches, I mean I will chew through the single player COD game in a couple of hours and never touch it again, but I will sit and play Borderlands for long periods of time.

I buy consoles to supplement my PC, if they don't offer something besides what I can get on my PC.... They feel like redundant wastes of money, two things I hate.

If the PS4 and Xbox One are going to be FPS boxes, I will just stick to my PC and the Wii-U.

This will be the first generation of consoles that I have not owned more than 1 of the systems and this goes all the way back to the 2600...

Holy crap I own a lot of consoles... damn my OCD!

I may pick up a PS4 near the middle or end of its life, depends on how Sony handles it.