Studios boss Phil Spencer says Nintendo's upcoming console is on par with graphical capability of current gen, believes Pro Controller will lead to more Xbox 360 ports.
This holiday season, Nintendo will be the first of the Big Three to release next-generation hardware in the form of the Wii U. But according to comments from Microsoft's Phil Spencer to GamesIndustry International, the Wii U is only on par with current-generation consoles, like the Xbox 360.
"Now they are really making an on-ramp for the back catalog of games that are on 360. It is easy for those games to move over to the Wii U. They've moved the buttons around, and they've made a controller that feels familiar for 360 gamers, so I get why they are putting those pieces together," he said.
This is not the first time it has been suggested that the Wii U will lag behind future consoles from Microsoft and Sony. Last month, Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida said the Wii U was in a generation of its own. And before that, a GameSpot survey found that the next Xbox and PlayStation 4 already have a leg up on the Wii U.
lol this is just pr talk , come on people you know darn well wii u is going to be at least 50 percent more powerful then ps3 360 , yes its going to be easy to make and port games from 360 over to it , that doesn't exactly mean its not better , dont listen to this guy he does not have a clue cause first of all it was the gamecube controller that the xbox took its design from , as well as the dreamcast , (the color buttons dc the stick layout gamecube)
so they cant pro-claim nintendo is using thier xbox360 controller design lol
who wants to buy software for a NEXT GEN machine that they've already seen years before on the 360/ps3?? and they won't have any form of WII U specific hardware support so it will be utterly pointless. I think Nintendo are fighting an uphill battle, the thought of having to buy a second controller out of the box has put me off entirely. Nintendo is all about consumer spend... the 3DS XL is a prime example of their incredible abillity to stitch the consumers up. How many of you 3DS owners WISH you had waited and bought the bigger one?? its a joke, and the cost of peripherals for the Wii U will be ridiculous once again.
Micro Soft are also worried about Sony's deal as they invested millions on a cloud game networking company. Wii U will also be bring out their own cloud gaming network as far as I have read. Because of this new development, Micro Soft are rushing to make their own too. I think Micro Soft are trying to complete buy attacking other companies. They even had issues with Onlive.
I have heard that the Wiiu's gpu is a step above the 360's 5-6 year old gpu, I am not sure what they are trying to say about the wiiu's pro controller, but the system (WiiU) Looks good but i am not sure when i will get it, i think i am trading my wii in for a WiiU hopefully getting zombiU too, but i am not sure when that comes out...
I heard the same thing. The Wii isn't as fast as the PS3 or Xbox 360, but rather then giving you high graphic games, they provide games with great gameplay, and real clasic games that you won't find in another system like Zelda for example. Would you sped your money on them? I own a Wii even though the system is slower, so yes, I think its worth it. I think Nintendo's Wii U will be faster then an xbox 360, but I would still research in it. But it's important to undrerstand that high spect hardware isn't everything. And now that cloud gaming is developing, hardware may not be important at all in the near future. To me, it looks that Micro soft are attacking Nindendo because they want them to buy their product. And Micro Soft are also contradicting them selves because all gaming consoles including xbox never use the latest cpu and graphic card hardware.
I heard that the next xbox are using an Radeon HD 6670 graphics card which is good, but its been out for years. I have a Radeon HD 6950 for my PC which is a lot faster card, but still isn't the fastest in the world, and that was brought over a year ago. So yes, hardware isn't everything. Nindendo are good at making greate games. Even though my PC will be faster then a Wii U hardware wise, the Wii U still interests me inand I will likely be buying one.
@Thunderbear24 I am not worried that the wiiU will be as fast as the 360, or ps3, as long as it's faster than the wii, (atleast double, if not more) ZombiU will be a system seller as well, as the other typical Nintendo offerings, I own a wii, and have not bought the mainstream nintendo offerings, not because i don;t like their games, but because nintendo is so pigheaded about pricing down their games, (and here i thought M$ was greedy...)
If anyone is confused about this article, the idiot trying to dis the Wii U is only dissing the tablet controller. Personally, I think it is incredible that a tablet for gaming has 1080p resolution and is MORE powerful than the 360. Also, Nintendo is not yet finished with the graphical area for the Wii U console. I thought this guy knew that the console was more powerful. Then again, I am more concerned with the gameplay more than the graphics. Obviously, a majority of gaming Devs are only concerned with making a game look beautiful rather than having superb gameplay.That formula is what caused Sony to fail this generation. I am looking forward to the next-gen Nintendo console. I will have to see for myself what this Wii U (which should be renamed, by the way) is capable of, since some sources are saying the Wii U is on par with the 360, and other sources are saying it is significantly more powerful than the PS3.
I think people are finally starting to realize that the the Wii U is not "next gen" it is THIS gen--just 6 years late. There is NOTHING about the Wii U that is "next gen" and a whole lot that is "this gen". It might do ok for a while now that it has caught up, but quickly (2013) it will be left behind again. But hey--it might get a bunch of old xbox360 ports!
"I think people are finally starting to realize that the the Wii U is not 'next gen' it is THIS gen--just 6 years late."
That makes absolutely no sense. If it comes out 6 years later, then it is, by default, the next generation. Because generations are defined by time.
By the way, not only is it more powerful than the current consoles (it can actually render in 1080p), but it also allows gamers to interact with their games in a way that none of the current consoles allow... that sounds pretty "next gen" (to incorrectly use terminology in the same way that you are) to me.
Actually, both the 360 and PS3 can do 1080p. And no--it isn't about time- it is about abilities. The Wii is about on par with the PS2 and xbox (in some ways worse in some ways better). It finally has caught up to the xbox360 and PS3. Reports are out there that it is only slightly more powerful if at all.
Also--no, the tablet is not new. Check out history.
The simple fact is that Nintendo is just catching up to the current gen. When the xbox720 and PS4 come out--they will be next gen.
Good point, I just realised something! Spencer said the WiiU is basicly on par with the 360, but the 360's highest res is 720p, and the WiiU is 1080p. I realise this looks exactly like the 360/PS3 comparison but its a moot statement, he is just trying to get a rise out of Nintendo fans.
Yeah but if you gleefully plug your PS3 into the HDMI port on your telly with visions of hi def eye popping games in your head then tell it output 1080p it then thinks it has licence to cram as much onto your screen as possible and makes all the fonts on the home screen smaller so if you have a nice background pic you really like you then can't read the miniscule writing on the telly, even on a 50", STUPID Sony, really stupid!!
Of course they can, crank the graphics down to a static image and they'll render at 1080p all day long. But none of the actual games released for either system render in 1080p because the hardware isn't capable of rendering such detail at that resolution.
We already know a good deal of information about the Wii U hardware, so it's not hard to figure out how it's going to compare to the current consoles. Sure, the actual final specs are still unknown, but we can figure out a ballpark until then, and judging from the footage of Assassin's Creed 3 (which is apparently running in 1080p), it's already shaping up to look quite a bit better than the PS3 version.
@abHS4L88 Yeah that's what I meant - Dreamcast was technically the best of the 3. Maybe my memory isn't at it's best, but I just didn't really like most of the Dreamcast games.
Totally agree with graphics getting to the point where we think "do we need more" - When I play Uncharted 3 or Assassin's Creed I am really not thinking "hmmm if only this looked better"! lolTo explain my point better; I personally don't think they "need" to go all out because I value gameplay over power, but neither Sony nor MS have the Nintendo factor (ie the MASSIVE fanbase, amazing and original exclusives, and quirky nature) so if either of them don't bring it, they could fail massively.
One of the big things that I hate is that Sony/MS seem desperate to make the next gen consoles "one box does all" systems - trying to make them cover ALL bases.When it comes to direction, Nintendo always have a singular vision and stick to it no matter what - sometimes it doesn't work, more often than not it does.
ya know, even as I wrote the "better businesses" comment I was doubting it lol. I think what I was trying to say is that they are bigger, more powerful businesses - that's why they smashed the market with the PS2 and 360, not because of hardware but because of clever marketing/strategy and in MS's case a bit of big boy bully tactics.
Nintendo are innovators, but don't always capitalise on what they have (wii and handhelds asside, obviously) but they make the best out of limited resources.
"Skewed and inaccurate" was just regarding your view of Sony/MS not having to go all out "just in case". When a business feels it's under threat of losing ground in a marketplace, they don't think "Let's not spend too much on this product, just in case" they throw absolutely everything at it to make sure they don't lose. You watch, they will be powerhouses and will have millions in marketing budget thrown at them. Oh and also, the current gen have not been hanging on just to make up profit on hardware sales (that's tiny in comparison to what they make in licensing fees), they have been hanging on because there has been no reason to upgrade! People are still buying millions of games and DLC etc so where's the pressure to do anything? Sure the tough economic climate is a factor, but not the deciding one by any stretch.
The Dreamcast was actually superior to the PS2 in hardware also, but it didn't survive long enough for developers to push its capabilities so of course later games like Resident Evil 4 will look better than most Dreamcast games. Also the Dreamcast had amazing exclusives and pretty good 3rd party support, there were many other factors that contributed to the DC's demise (rarson is far more knowledgeable than I am with this)
Also I highly disagree with Sony and Microsoft NEEDING to go all out because the cost is simply going to be way too high and the risks it'll pose could indeed be more damaging than beneficial. Also Sony dominated when its console wasn't the most powerful, yet it's 3rd place in this generation with the most powerful console, what does that say? We're also getting to the point where graphical leap is becoming less of a necessity because of how amazing games are already looking now. Also judging from patents and rumors, it seems like Sony and Microsoft are trying to take the Nintendo direction with their upcoming consoles and try something different (which intrigues me if it turns out to be true because I'm highly curious to see what they could come up with).
I COMPLETELY disagree that Sony and Microsoft are "better businesses" than Nintendo, we're talking about a clever company that has dominated the handheld market for over 2 decades and has consistently stayed strong in the home console market. Heck, Nintendo made sure that Vita launch sales would not be great in Japan by releasing two major first party titles for the 3DS during the Vita's launch period, that's cunning. This generation, they were the only one of the big 3 to take a completely different direction and in terms of business, they had the greatest amount of success. They were even named #1 company in the world a couple of years back.
You say that my comments are inaccurate and skewed but how so? I stated that Sony and Microsoft needed the 360 and PS3 to survive longer than usual because they are only just seeing profit returns on these consoles, that's a fact. Sure it paid off in the long run, but what if they're not as successful next generation, especially now that Nintendo has their own HD console to compete?
@abHS4L88 Re Battlefield, I'm just saying - developers and manufacturers don't always tell the truth....
The Wii U will 100% be the inferior console power-wise. If that's not true I swear I will GIVE you my home cinema system and entire game collection lol. We can agree that the Wii U is probably going to be slightly ahead of the PS3, but you can bet that Sony and MS will make a bigger jump. You mention business models and profits etc but without wanting to sound condescending - your comments are inaccurate and skewed. Sony/MS know that they need to NAIL their next gen console, so they will not hold back when it comes to the specs/power. They also know that if they lose, it could finish them as a game hardware developer.... THEY WILL NOT LET IT HAPPEN. I have no love for either company, but they are better "businesses" than Nintendo and are just so much bigger that will just buy success - because they can.The PS2/Gamecube/Dreamcast situation is a good point but slightly different in circumstances: The Dreamcast was great but Sega royally screwed it up with average games and little 3rd party support, Gamecube was the same (with a few excellent games mind), and the PS2 just got it all right. Ok technically there were some differences, but it wasn't a big difference in terms of what we saw on the screen. As a rough comparison, Resi 4 pushed the Gamecube and was arguably one of the best looking games on the platform - do you think it looked any worse on the PS2? Not really. Also, I'd say it looked a whole lot better than Code Veronica and just about anything else on the Dreamcast.
But that's a multiplatform game, we're talking about the Wii U.
The only reason there has to be clarification about the Wii U being more powerful is because there has been WAY too much ignorant speculation that the Wii U is only on par with the 360 and PS3 and like you said, it shouldn't even be taken into consideration yet too many stupid people automatically assume something that is impossible to do. We already discussed the Wii U, but we didn't discuss Sony and Microsoft's upcoming consoles.
Take this into account, both Sony (especially Sony) and Microsoft have invested millions into the PS3 and 360, giving them the power to extend past the typical 5 -6 year mark but in exchange, it means that the console NEEDED to extend past those years in order for Sony and Microsoft to gain back the money invested, especially since both sold their consoles at a loss whereas Nintendo profited from every Wii sold. With this in mind, do you think it's possible for Sony and Microsoft do once again make that same investment? Both rarson and I recognize that there is a chance that the Wii U will be the least powerful, but there's an even greater chance that that difference in power will be hardly damaging to the Wii U.
If anything, it could emulate the situation with the PS2, GameCube and XBox where the PS2 was by far the weakest, yet trounced the other 2 because it established a very strong user base along with loyal 3rd party support and since Nintendo has about 2 years before Sony and Microsoft release their new consoles, the Wii U has the chance to do the same, especially if 3rd party developers discover that the next gen Sony and Microsoft consoles aren't much more powerful than the Wii U.
@abHS4L88@rarson I kind of agree, but at the moment it's all "tech demos" etc. Battlefield 3 looked stunning until everyone finally accepted that the pre-release vids were running on a PC, not a console. I'd say if the Zelda demo is accurate, it's on a par with some of the better XBox/PS3 titles out there now, and in a few years the games will start to get even better, but by then the Sony and MS consoles will be out and they are going to be massively more powerful. The fact is, we're sort of arguing over whether the Wii U will be equal or slightly better than 6 year old hardware.... it shouldn't even be a consideration, it should be MILES ahead really.
You've probably gathered that I am actually a Nintendo supporter (though not a delusional fanboy - I own all 3 current gen consoles after all) and have owned every major Nintendo console since the NES, I just don't think the Wii U is enough to succeed the way they did with the Wii. I'll buy one, because the Nintendo exclusives are some of my favourite games of all time, I just don't see it winning the mass market like it did with the Wii. As per yesterday's conversation abHS4L88.... we'll agree to disagree - but I hope you're right! ;-)
Pikmin 3 looks better than most of the PS3 titles (to me at least) the level of detail and realistic movement seen in Pikmin 3 looks like we're looking into a real field/pond/grassy area and remember this is Nintenod's first time creating HD games and already their first offering looks stunning. Also that Zelda tech demo last year looks better than a lot of the games out there right now.
@rarson Some games such as Wipeout HD have a NATIVE resolution of 1080p... nothing to do with up-scaling. However the point is, even if the hardware is able to do it, very few games will support it. Whatever your thoughts re 1080p, the PS3 can definitely render in 1080i - but nearly all games actually use 720p as their native resolution, even games with stunning graphics like Dead space are only 720p. The Wii U games, will look like decent PS3 games at best. (not saying that's a bad thing by the way, just that people shouldn't get too excited about it graphically)
I checked out his site. It's not that bad. The information is fairly accurate (although nothing I haven't heard before), but the writing is terrible (especially from a guy claiming to be a professional writer for over 10 years).
Unfortunately, the practice of jumping on another site and using a comment system to spam about your own site is despicable, so no matter how much I like the site, I'm still going to flag the comments as spam.