Topic: The OFFICIAL Big N rumor thread *bring your own salt*

[Adrock]

The Wii is the only console Nintendo really skimped on power. Even the original DS was an appropriate jump from GBA. Sony just leapfrogged Nintendo in the hopes that people would be drawn to PSP. We all know how that ended up for them.

3DS is an extremely capable system. It only looks weak next to Vita which is also not doing as well as 3DS. I really don't think there's reason to worry about Wii U's hardware. Didn't Nintendo ask for 3rd party input when developing 3DS? Besides the missing right circle pad, they got it mostly right. I presume Nintendo asked for similar input with Wii U. If Nintendo went to them and said that the hardware is less capable than current generation consoles, most of them would raise and eyebrow. If they requested input and took it to heart, they probably would have started with rectifying issues developers had with current systems like PS3's split memory. No one seems to be a fan of that.

[nickmitch]

I dunno why we're even entertaining those comments. They don't make a lot a sense, and were likely just written up to draw hits or be an April Fools gag. It's funny how one ANONYMOUS source gets everyone worked up after we've already heard from real people.

SEGA is in trouble? That's news to me. They just finished their publishing deal with Platinum Games, they made Sonic Colors and Generations, they're currently working on Sonic 4 Episode 2 and Phantasy Star Online 2. Not to mention the new IP's like Valkeria Chronicles.


SEGA has done a lot the past few years. If they really were in trouble, then they wouldn't have spent the time and effort in developing/publishing those big games.


Then again, with them shutting down much of their North American QA and publishing sectors, maybe they're just going to exit the Western market and simply focus on Japan? If they do that, then what will become of the Sonic franchise and its fanbase?

SEGA has been in trouble for a while. Their risk for going under has just been increasing as the company is getting ready to post a massive loss. And being in debt doesn't mean that a company completely stops the day to day operations. That's typically how companies get out of debt.

[Ian Sane]

One anonymous sources gets us worked up because we're scared.  Nintendo skimping on the hardware again is the worst case scenario and the number one fear about the Wii U.  This is what we don't want and we're scared it could happen so the slighest hint of that occuring and we're shitting bricks.

I don't think the source is correct, I just think it COULD be correct.  Until Nintendo officially releases the specs, I'm not going to relax about it.  And if Nintendo doesn't release the specs, then the Wii U IS underpowered.  The whole reason they were all coy about the specs last time was because they knew the Wii was a glorified last-gen machine and wanted to hide that potentially damaging information for as long as possible.

[Ceric]

IF all the third party games look great and aren't limited at E3 then it could be powered by a hamster for all I care.  There has been enough information already out to know that in the first set of Dev hardware it was at least as powerful as PS360.  Some Developers had already ported some of there games fully to the test hardware with no issue and only Nintendo saying they couldn't show it stopping them.  We know that.  We also know that the hardware itself has only gotten vastly better since the E3 Dev Kits.

[Adrock]

And if Nintendo doesn't release the specs, then the Wii U IS underpowered.

Flawed logic is flawed. Nintendo didn't release the specs of 3DS. If nothing else, they're consistent. They haven't released specs since the GameCube (possibly DS) so that seems more like an Iwata policy than anything else. I think Nintendo was ahead of the times with the whole "specs don't matter" thing. They don't. Ultimately, you don't play specs; you play games and Nintendo hasn't stopped making great games despite their dated hardware. In 2006, you could still see the difference in games. However, we're reaching a point of diminishing returns. How much better are games going to look? How much further can they push those boundaries before it's almost a waste to do so?

I'm really not worried about the specs. Whoever is posting these comments from annonymous sources is clearly looking for a story.

[Ian Sane]

And if Nintendo doesn't release the specs, then the Wii U IS underpowered.

Flawed logic is flawed. Nintendo didn't release the specs of 3DS. If nothing else, they're consistent.

Perhaps it is just their policy now but there is justification to hide the 3DS specs and again it has to do with the Wii.  Revealing the 3DS specs further exposes the inadequecy of the Wii.  Nintendo's handheld is more powerful than their console?  This isn't a good thing to promote.

Specs don't matter... until third party developers refuse to make games for your system despite it having the most sales because it's too weak to include in multiplatform development.

Plus buying a new system is expensive.  If Nintendo is to convince me to upgrade from one console to the next they better provide some noticable improvement.  There has to be some justification to create games for a new console instead of an existing one.  With the Wii it was like they just re-released the Gamecube with a new hat.  Yeah I can't play Wii Sports on the Gamecube, but only because Nintendo decided to release the Wiimote as the standard controller for a new system, instead of as an accessory for the old one.  I understand the business reason to start fresh but from a technical perspective there was no reason to make me buy a whole new system.

This applies to all console makers.  If the PS4 is a glorified PS3 with used games locked out, that's a borderline scam.  A new system should allow for games that cannot be done on the old hardware.  If the SNES was just a slightly spruced up NES (say SMS level graphics) with a six button controller it would justifiably be seen as a huge rip-off.  You have to provide some value to justify asking everyone to pay for a brand new system.  The Wii got away with it because they targetted a large group of new users and thus were not asking them to pay for an upgrade that wasn't really an upgrade.  If Sony or MS, who were trying to get an existing customerbase to upgrade, tried that crap it would have bombed.  A follow-up to the incredibly popular PS2 that is essentially a PS2.5?  That would have been a disaster.  The Wii worked because the Gamecube wasn't very successful so there were less people being asked to upgrade (and those that were were largely loyal Nintendo fans).  It was like a Gamecube do-over.  But they can't do that again.  The Wii was successful so they have to follow it up and expect the existing Wii userbase to upgrade.  They can't just sell a Wii 1.5.

[Chozo Ghost]

SEGA has been in trouble for a while.

That's an understatement. They've been in trouble since like 1994, which was 18 years ago. They've been able to hang on all this time, but its been a downward spiral, and no one can deny being forced to go 3rd party was a major blow at least psychologically if nothing else.

[Luigi Dude]

Plus buying a new system is expensive.  If Nintendo is to convince me to upgrade from one console to the next they better provide some noticable improvement.  There has to be some justification to create games for a new console instead of an existing one.  With the Wii it was like they just re-released the Gamecube with a new hat.  Yeah I can't play Wii Sports on the Gamecube, but only because Nintendo decided to release the Wiimote as the standard controller for a new system, instead of as an accessory for the old one.  I understand the business reason to start fresh but from a technical perspective there was no reason to make me buy a whole new system.

This applies to all console makers.  If the PS4 is a glorified PS3 with used games locked out, that's a borderline scam.  A new system should allow for games that cannot be done on the old hardware.  If the SNES was just a slightly spruced up NES (say SMS level graphics) with a six button controller it would justifiably be seen as a huge rip-off.  You have to provide some value to justify asking everyone to pay for a brand new system.  The Wii got away with it because they targetted a large group of new users and thus were not asking them to pay for an upgrade that wasn't really an upgrade.  If Sony or MS, who were trying to get an existing customerbase to upgrade, tried that crap it would have bombed.  A follow-up to the incredibly popular PS2 that is essentially a PS2.5?  That would have been a disaster.  The Wii worked because the Gamecube wasn't very successful so there were less people being asked to upgrade (and those that were were largely loyal Nintendo fans).  It was like a Gamecube do-over.  But they can't do that again.  The Wii was successful so they have to follow it up and expect the existing Wii userbase to upgrade.  They can't just sell a Wii 1.5.

Have you not seen the tech demo's because the Wii U is far beyond the Wii in terms of power.  Once again, we have seen at a minimum what the Wii U is capable of doing from last year's E3 and it's a huge difference from the Wii.

Zelda Demo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arHNcSMXaBk

Japanese Garden Demo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2Nsa06KRLo


Both of these demo's were done on early Wii U hardware which is weaker then the final hardware.  Both of these demo's already look better then nearly everything on the 360/PS3.  If the early Wii U hardware was already above the 360/PS3, this proves the final hardware will have a significant difference in power.  This proves that any source that says the system is actually weaker is outright lying because the actual video's prove differently.

Unlike Microsoft and Sony who show fake FMV's for their tech demo's that look better then what the final games look like, Nintendo's early tech demo's are actually done on real hardware and always look weaker then what the final system can do because Nintendo actually makes them on the early hardware.

[Spak-Spang]

Yes, and both of those Demos were done with no AI or other programing required for a real game.  Yes, I think Nintendo's games will look nice, and it will be better than the current systems...leaps and bounds better?  No, but better.  We will have to see what Nintendo does with the experiences overall. 

[Adrock]

Perhaps it is just their policy now but there is justification to hide the 3DS specs and again it has to do with the Wii.  Revealing the 3DS specs further exposes the inadequecy of the Wii.  Nintendo's handheld is more powerful than their console?  This isn't a good thing to promote.

Really? Why would it matter? Nintendo made boatloads of money on the Wii and their own development resources had already begun shifting at that point to Wii U.

Yes, and both of those Demos were done with no AI or other programing required for a real game.

Wouldn't that be handled by the CPU? Those demos give a good indication of what ATi's GPU can do so unless Nintendo plans on putting a really shitty CPU in there, there's really nothing to worry about on that front.

[tendoboy1984]

Plus buying a new system is expensive.  If Nintendo is to convince me to upgrade from one console to the next they better provide some noticable improvement.  There has to be some justification to create games for a new console instead of an existing one.  With the Wii it was like they just re-released the Gamecube with a new hat.  Yeah I can't play Wii Sports on the Gamecube, but only because Nintendo decided to release the Wiimote as the standard controller for a new system, instead of as an accessory for the old one.  I understand the business reason to start fresh but from a technical perspective there was no reason to make me buy a whole new system.

This applies to all console makers.  If the PS4 is a glorified PS3 with used games locked out, that's a borderline scam.  A new system should allow for games that cannot be done on the old hardware.  If the SNES was just a slightly spruced up NES (say SMS level graphics) with a six button controller it would justifiably be seen as a huge rip-off.  You have to provide some value to justify asking everyone to pay for a brand new system.  The Wii got away with it because they targetted a large group of new users and thus were not asking them to pay for an upgrade that wasn't really an upgrade.  If Sony or MS, who were trying to get an existing customerbase to upgrade, tried that crap it would have bombed.  A follow-up to the incredibly popular PS2 that is essentially a PS2.5?  That would have been a disaster.  The Wii worked because the Gamecube wasn't very successful so there were less people being asked to upgrade (and those that were were largely loyal Nintendo fans).  It was like a Gamecube do-over.  But they can't do that again.  The Wii was successful so they have to follow it up and expect the existing Wii userbase to upgrade.  They can't just sell a Wii 1.5.

Have you not seen the tech demo's because the Wii U is far beyond the Wii in terms of power.  Once again, we have seen at a minimum what the Wii U is capable of doing from last year's E3 and it's a huge difference from the Wii.

Zelda Demo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arHNcSMXaBk

Japanese Garden Demo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2Nsa06KRLo


Both of these demo's were done on early Wii U hardware which is weaker then the final hardware.  Both of these demo's already look better then nearly everything on the 360/PS3.  If the early Wii U hardware was already above the 360/PS3, this proves the final hardware will have a significant difference in power.  This proves that any source that says the system is actually weaker is outright lying because the actual video's prove differently.

Unlike Microsoft and Sony who show fake FMV's for their tech demo's that look better then what the final games look like, Nintendo's early tech demo's are actually done on real hardware and always look weaker then what the final system can do because Nintendo actually makes them on the early hardware.

This. People need to realize that Nintendo isn't trying to directly compete with Microsoft and Sony. They are in their own bubble. For Nintendo, the Wii U is a huge leap ahead in terms of technology and graphics.

[Adrock]

Nintendo can try to play it off that they're aren't competing with Sony and MS but they really are. If you buy a Sony/MS console or game, you didn't buy a Nintendo console/game. Nintendo wants people to spend money on their wares.

[tendoboy1984]

Nintendo can try to play it off that they're aren't competing with Sony and MS but they really are. If you buy a Sony/MS console or game, you didn't buy a Nintendo console/game. Nintendo wants people to spend money on their wares.

So would the same thing apply to the 3DS competing with Apple (iPod / iPhone / iPad), Android, and Windows Phone 7? They all play games.

[Adrock]

In a way, yes. As a company, I'm sure Nintendo understands that people buy phones, for example, because they need phones. In terms of gaming dollars and time, Nintendo is competing with iOS and Android. Of course, they can coexist but Nintendo is still competing with all of these companies that threaten their bottom line, whether directly (Sony/MS with dedicated gaming devices) or indirectly (Apple with devices that play games but not as a primary function).

[Kairon]

Actually, that IS pretty close to what Nintendo, or Iwata, actually implies. This last gen Iwata's rhetoric has had this messiah complex tinge to it where it almost sounds as if Nintendo feels they have to compete against all the possible ways people spend their entertainment time and dollars in order to preserve "videogaming" against irrelevance. Especially when going after the blue ocean gamer, they know they have to compete for attention with movies, books, tv, etc.

I think it's probably more accurate to say that Nintendo isn't competing JUST against Sony and MS. They see themselves as part of a bigger entertainment picture, where a bevy of factors aside from hardware musculature are of great import.

[Mop it up]

Yeah I can't play Wii Sports on the Gamecube, but only because Nintendo decided to release the Wiimote as the standard controller for a new system, instead of as an accessory for the old one.  I understand the business reason to start fresh but from a technical perspective there was no reason to make me buy a whole new system.

Could you buy an accessory for Miis, online play, the digital game store, more space on discs, and everything else the Wii brought with it? I know there was technically online on the GameCube, though it wasn't wireless so it wasn't as practical. The Wii brought a lot more than just the Wiimote, and if there were a hypothetical accessory for all its features, it would cost more than what a Wii does, function less smoothly, and be one ugly monstrosity.

[Ian Sane]

Yeah I can't play Wii Sports on the Gamecube, but only because Nintendo decided to release the Wiimote as the standard controller for a new system, instead of as an accessory for the old one.  I understand the business reason to start fresh but from a technical perspective there was no reason to make me buy a whole new system.

Could you buy an accessory for Miis, online play, the digital game store, more space on discs, and everything else the Wii brought with it? I know there was technically online on the GameCube, though it wasn't wireless so it wasn't as practical. The Wii brought a lot more than just the Wiimote, and if there were a hypothetical accessory for all its features, it would cost more than what a Wii does, function less smoothly, and be one ugly monstrosity.

No one would buy a new console entirely for the Mii's, digital game store and more space on discs.  Those are rinky-dinky improvements.  They're important but they aren't the selling point.  That's like if the N64 had the four controller ports and that was it.  As for online the Gamecube was supposed to be online and Nintendo promoted the feature when I bought a Cube and then essentially backed out of it.  So that doesn't count.  Features you promised and then cancelled don't count.  There is no excuse for Nintendo to not go online with the Cube.  "Remember those vague online plans we were never specific about and then just dropped altogether?  Now you can enjoy them... by buying a new console!"  What a fucking rip-off!

[Chozo Ghost]

There is no excuse for Nintendo to not go online with the Cube.

Actually, there was an excuse: the Gamecube did poorly. I honestly think when Nintendo was promising online with the Cube they probably really meant that, but then the system bombed and third party support was almost non-existent. I think that's what forced them to change their plans.

The same is probably true with the 64DD addon which they promised for the N64. At the time, they probably thought the developer support would be there, and that the N64 itself would sell a lot better than it did. Not that the N64 did poorly by any means, but it didn't reach the NES or SNES level of success. So when things change and don't measure up to your expectations sometimes its necessary to alter your plans to accept the reality of the situation.

I don't know what all Nintendo has planned for the Wii U or might promise us with that, but if the Wii U bombs or just doesn't do as well as expected those plans may be altered or scrapped.

[Ceric]

There is no excuse for Nintendo to not go online with the Cube.

Actually, there was an excuse: the Gamecube did poorly. I honestly think when Nintendo was promising online with the Cube they probably really meant that, but then the system bombed and third party support was almost non-existent. I think that's what forced them to change their plans.

The same is probably true with the 64DD addon which they promised for the N64. At the time, they probably thought the developer support would be there, and that the N64 itself would sell a lot better than it did. Not that the N64 did poorly by any means, but it didn't reach the NES or SNES level of success. So when things change and don't measure up to your expectations sometimes its necessary to alter your plans to accept the reality of the situation.

I don't know what all Nintendo has planned for the Wii U or might promise us with that, but if the Wii U bombs or just doesn't do as well as expected those plans may be altered or scrapped.

The big difference between GCN being online and the DD drive was that the Gamecube had the hardware for it in the market.  Nintendo should have tried to go online with there games.

[Mop it up]

No one would buy a new console entirely for the Mii's, digital game store and more space on discs. Those are rinky-dinky improvements.  They're important but they aren't the selling point

Actually, I recall lots of people finding the Miis to be a large part of the charm of the Wii in the first couple of years. The Virtual Console also received a lot of praise for a while, so I have no doubt it's one of the reasons that people bought a Wii. Larger discs may not seem very important, but many games like Super Mario Galaxy could not be on the GameCube in their current form (even assuming the GameCube could push the graphics), as the data is too large to fit on a GameCube disc. You can discount online if you want, but the fact is, it practically didn't happen on the GameCube and the Wii did it a lot better than the GameCube could have. Did Nintendo actually promise online on the GameCube, or did they just toss out the Broadband Adapter for third-parties to use? I don't recall Nintendo ever talking about using it themselves, but I could be mistaken.

If most of the features of the Wii don't appeal to you, that's your prerogative. But they appeal to lots of other people, and I don't think any one of them on their own was a sole selling point. The complete Wii package is what sold it to people, and none of those things individually could have worked as well on the GameCube, much less been successful.

[Ian Sane]

Did Nintendo actually promise online on the GameCube, or did they just toss out the Broadband Adapter for third-parties to use? I don't recall Nintendo ever talking about using it themselves, but I could be mistaken.

Nintendo showed off both the broadband adapter and dial-up modem when they debuted the Gamecube.  They were asked about their online plan and gave vague answers about revealing the details at a later date.  That was actually the norm as MS and Sony did not have solidly stated plans right off the bat either.  Technically they didn't say "we're going to make online games" but they didn't say they weren't until years after the Cube was out.  It was a feature the system supported and it was clearly implied that Nintendo themselves would support it.  Why wouldn't you assume that?  When did any videogame company release a peripheral and not support it themselves?  It was also assumed that they would provide some sort of development kit to third parties about the broadband adapter and they didn't.  Everyone was just on their own and naturally only one company supported it.
 
Technically they didn't promise anything but it was clear that people would interpret it the way they did.  Sega didn't state outright "hey we're only going to support this 32X thing for like a year" but people were still pissed at them and rightfully so.  The implication was that they would support it longer.  I don't like to play lawyerball.  Nintendo also didn't promise us anything with the infamous Spaceworld Zelda footage but it was clear that every sane person was going to assume that the new Zelda game would look somewhat like that.  For that and the online thing Nintendo either operated in bad faith, allowing us to assume one thing when they knew it was the opposite, OR they're really really DUMB to be so oblivious as to how we would come to these assumptions.  Are they dicks or idiots?  I think they were idiots on the Zelda thing and dicks on the online one. Odds are they didn't know yet if they would or would not make online games so they kept it vague and then backed out later and didn't care if it would upset their existing userbase.

[MegaByte]

Larger discs may not seem very important, but many games like Super Mario Galaxy could not be on the GameCube in their current form (even assuming the GameCube could push the graphics), as the data is too large to fit on a GameCube disc.

Many of the Wii games that are too big to fit on a GC disc are due to the use of a relatively uncompressed video format, Super Mario Galaxy included.

[Mop it up]

Nintendo showed off both the broadband adapter and dial-up modem when they debuted the Gamecube...

Ah, I had forgotten about that. I never really paid attention to online back then, but if they debuted the adapter with the GameCube and things were like you explained, I can see how that made it seem like it would be something more than it was.

Many of the Wii games that are too big to fit on a GC disc are due to the use of a relatively uncompressed video format, Super Mario Galaxy included.

Doesn't more compression equal lower quality, though?

[MegaByte]

Not if you're using more modern compression algorithms. Anyway, Nintendo just bought a company to do that.

[Chozo Ghost]

Didn't Mario Kart DD (and possibly a few other games) make use of the broadband adapter thing for local LAN party play? I know that's not online, but it would count as official Nintendo support of the peripheral.

But as far as bad faith and all that, I don't think it was Nintendo's intention to introduce those peripherals and then have them not receive any support. Why would they go through the hassle and not to mention the cost of making something which serves no purpose? That's why I genuinely believe Nintendo intended for those peripherals to see a lot more use than they did. Maybe Nintendo didn't support them directly like they should have, but 3rd parties should also be blamed for either not making use of it or just not even supporting the Gamecube period.

Even in multiplatform online games which did make it to the GC the online capability was cut out of the GC port. There was no good reason for that becasue the peripherals did exist. But you can't blame Nintendo for that.