The 8th generation arrived.....last year.

[Lightknight]

No, I mean immersion but schematics aside

Whoa, let's not be too hasty. Maybe we'll need them to build something later.

Just FYI, I'm only responding to this so that I can finally say I've delved into semantics over the what should be the word semantics. Whether or not you intended that word, I get to check it off my bucket list and I thank you for that.

Also, you and I agree on a large number of things. Or so I've noticed lately. Kudos.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

Just FYI, I'm only responding to this so that I can finally say I've delved into semantics over the what should be the word semantics. Whether or not you intended that word, I get to check it off my bucket list and I thank you for that.

That actually made me belt out a laugh. Good one.

 

[Warachia]

That worked out entirely differently though, you had to connect it through cables, it would have connection issues, and you couldn't play the games through the GBA, you still needed a tv and the GBA would have to supplement the Gamecube in some way, so it wasn't cross-play at all.

Never said it was cross play.I was just making the point that Nintendo were experimenting with connecting your handheld to your console years before Sony even released a handheld

My mistake then, I assumed when you inferred that they what the vita does from what Nintendo did, that you were saying the GBA does the same thing the Vita does.

Who copied who doesn't really matter, the point is that it's not new technology or exclusive to the Wii U which certainly adds to the argument that the Wii U is not "next gen".

You weren't paying attention to what we were talking about at all were you? We weren't talking about what generation the Wii U is, we were talking about whether or not Sony copied Nintendo with some of the capabilities of the PS Vita.

 

[crazygameguy4ever]

the wii U is current gen.. PS4 and xbone are next gen.. that's just the way it is .the wii u is barely on par with the PS3 and 360 so even if it was a next gen console(which it's not) it wouldn't last long.. not that it's doing well at the moment anyways

 

[KazeAizen]

When did console generations begin being defined by tech specs?

What's wrong with looking at tech specs? We are buying hardware. We want to know what that hardware is capable of. We'll worry about which games are good when we are buying games.

Except we don't control what goes into a game. So the tech specs really only matter to the people actually making the games. Same for PC gaming. A company makes a game that has a certain barrier with numbers. All PC gamers have to do is make sure that their tech breaks that barrier down so they can play. In a sense they are the only type of gamers who need to be concerned with the numbers.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

When did console generations begin being defined by tech specs?

What's wrong with looking at tech specs? We are buying hardware. We want to know what that hardware is capable of. We'll worry about which games are good when we are buying games.

Except we don't control what goes into a game. So the tech specs really only matter to the people actually making the games. Same for PC gaming. A company makes a game that has a certain barrier with numbers. All PC gamers have to do is make sure that their tech breaks that barrier down so they can play. In a sense they are the only type of gamers who need to be concerned with the numbers.

The hardware issue does come up if you want to play third party multiplatform games, currently next-gen titles like Assassins Creed 4 and COD Ghosts are coming to the WiiU as well as the 360 and PS3 but its unknown how long this will last and what has been cut to make it run on the less powerful machines.

 

[GoaThief]

That worked out entirely differently though, you had to connect it through cables, it would have connection issues, and you couldn't play the games through the GBA, you still needed a tv and the GBA would have to supplement the Gamecube in some way, so it wasn't cross-play at all.

Never said it was cross play.I was just making the point that Nintendo were experimenting with connecting your handheld to your console years before Sony even released a handheld

My mistake then, I assumed when you inferred that they what the vita does from what Nintendo did, that you were saying the GBA does the same thing the Vita does.

Who copied who doesn't really matter, the point is that it's not new technology or exclusive to the Wii U which certainly adds to the argument that the Wii U is not "next gen".

You weren't paying attention to what we were talking about at all were you? We weren't talking about what generation the Wii U is, we were talking about whether or not Sony copied Nintendo with some of the capabilities of the PS Vita.

Perhaps it is you who isn't paying attention at all, take a look at the thread title.

See that? That's what we're all talking about.

Just FYI, I'm only responding to this so that I can finally say I've delved into semantics over the what should be the word semantics. Whether or not you intended that word, I get to check it off my bucket list and I thank you for that.

That actually made me belt out a laugh. Good one.

Haha, I'd like to say it was intentional but I've no idea how that happened, even skim read it back and didn't notice. It may have been SwiftKey working it's "magic" too. Shame "all the same to me" doesn't fit for my new tag.

 

[Dragonbums]

Balls.

I was right to stay far far away from this thread.

I'm just going to say this OP.

It really doesn't matter what gen they call the Wii U. If you like it ,go buy it. If you don't, don't buy it.

If people want to label it last gen, next gen, 10th gen, whatever then let em.


The console is just in the same as the 3DS was. Nobody wanted it until the Nintendo first party and second party games arrived.
And that's what Nintendo has to approach their hardware now.

They are a company born in an era where game developers also made hardware, and to sell that hardware you present the games you made to show it off.

After the fall of SEGA (due to a whole lot of other bullshit they pulled off prior to the Dreamcast and not the actual console itself) Nintendo are a relic of a bygone era.

Yes Microsoft and Sony make games for their system. However a bulk of the exclusives everyone is excited for are third parties paid to be exclusive, and studios that were bought and work for Sony now.

They played the specs game with the Gamecube and got their ass handed to by Sony and Microsoft. My venture is that they don't really see it as a worthy monetary path anymore.

Every Nintendo launch has been flagship titles like Mario and Zelda. After they release those games, that's when the smaller IP's like Kirby, Yoshi, come in. Then they solidify it with their second wave titles like Animal Crossing, and Pokemon. (In the case of their consoles SSB)

That's usually the time people start buying their consoles anyway. Nintendo basically became the Apple of the videogame industry. In the sense that they are competing, but at the same time, not really competing either.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

I hate that this isn't obvious to people.

All right kids, it's math time! First question: What number comes after seven?
Eight!
Now, what console came after the Wii?
Wii U!
So what generation is the Wii U in?
Seven point five!

It's literally kindergarten level math, and some people can't handle it.

 

[Lightknight]

The hardware issue does come up if you want to play third party multiplatform games, currently next-gen titles like Assassins Creed 4 and COD Ghosts are coming to the WiiU as well as the 360 and PS3 but its unknown how long this will last and what has been cut to make it run on the less powerful machines.

While I am firmly in the camp that sees the WiiU as current generation technology, I need to clarify that the WiiU is not "barely" on par with the 360/ps3. It is absolutely more powerful than either. By around 2x (either just or slightly lower due to a slightly weaker CPU but other efficiencies) at least from the numbers I've seen. It's a three core processor is almost identical to the 360 but it has 1GB of useable gaming RAM. The 360 had 512MB RAM was half that and some of which would be relegated to the OS whereas the WiiU has a second GB of RAM set aside for that. I will say that the 1GB is used by both the GPU and CPU.

Then you have much larger 360 HDDs and the DVD/bluray players that allow for faster reading of larger games. The WiiU's 32GB hdd is a joke and their disks max out at 25GB which is half the size of bluray disks already and potentially even lower if the ps4's bluray reader can read denser disks or more layers than the 2x the ps3 can.

So yeah, the WiiU is very much current tech, but it's clearly better than the rest. Compared to its predecessor it is certainly a generation higher. But compared to market as a whole it isn't close to the next gen we're expecting.

Just FYI, I'm only responding to this so that I can finally say I've delved into semantics over the what should be the word semantics. Whether or not you intended that word, I get to check it off my bucket list and I thank you for that.

That actually made me belt out a laugh. Good one.

Haha, I'd like to say it was intentional but I've no idea how that happened, even skim read it back and didn't notice. It may have been SwiftKey working it's "magic" too. Shame "all the same to me" doesn't fit for my new tag.

haha. Nice to have fun once in awhile.

It really doesn't matter what gen they call the Wii U. If you like it ,go buy it. If you don't, don't buy it.

Yes, this is a fair sentiment.

The console is just in the same as the 3DS was. Nobody wanted it until the Nintendo first party and second party games arrived.
And that's what Nintendo has to approach their hardware now.

They are a company born in an era where game developers also made hardware, and to sell that hardware you present the games you made to show it off.

After the fall of SEGA (due to a whole lot of other bullshit they pulled off prior to the Dreamcast and not the actual console itself) Nintendo are a relic of a bygone era.

Nintendo is also innovative as Hell. They launched the peripheral market singlehandedly. Yes, the WiiU is something I believe we'll see as a failure, but there's no telling what they'll come up with next. Since their games are generally more artistic (i.e. not graphically demanding), they'd do well to brand themselves as a family product. The wii sold well because it was innovative, fun/safe for the family and hundreds of dollars cheaper than the competition. The WiiU is not as innovative, not yet fun for the family due to a lack of titles, and isn't all that cheap. So its alienating the casual gamers from the Wii while not meeting the needs/expectations of serious gamers at a percieved returned value of the asking price. We can get around the lack of second/third party developers with strong enough 3rd party support at a reasonable price. Just like the Wii did.

Yes Microsoft and Sony make games for their system. However a bulk of the exclusives everyone is excited for are third parties paid to be exclusive, and studios that were bought and work for Sony now.

? Many of Sony's most successful studios were started by them or have been under their control for more than a decade. I'm not sure why you dismiss them as invalid first party studios. If Sony bought a studio yesterday, would that somehow make their titles less exclusive or enjoyable?

Naughty Dog, for example, was purchased in 2001. They didn't develop the first Uncharted until 2007. Beforehand they were really only known for Crash Bandicoot. After aquisition they only did new IPs like Uncharted, Jak and Daxter, and The Last of Us. Games which were not only beautiful but have often been strongly considered for game of the year (Uncharted 2 won a few and The Last of Us looks like a strong contender)

SCE Santa Monica is an extremely productive Sony first party creating everything from God of War to a massive list of collaborative projects: Flower, Pixeljunk, Journey (lots of work with ThatGameCompany) and many others. Including the upcoming The Order: 1886 in collaboration with Ready at Dawn which itself is composed of former Naughty Dog employees and is a second party publisher, not 3rd.

Team Ico is literally just a team within Sony Japan. While their work has been sporadic, their games have been legendary. I really hope they still deliver on what they've been working on for so long. I bet Sony asked them to scale it up for PS4.

You can scoff all you want at who owns who, but the end result is the same for Playstation Owners. They get great AAA exclusives from several studios that they own and a lot of great titles from 2nd and 3rd parties. Really, you can't ask for anything more because that's a AAA game on all three fronts.

They played the specs game with the Gamecube and got their ass handed to by Sony and Microsoft. My venture is that they don't really see it as a worthy monetary path anymore.

The gamecube didn't have games, if you recall. And Microsoft didn't kick their ass. The gamecube sold 22 million and the xbox sold 24 million. Respectable for a first time entrant but it was solely the PS2 that hit hard at 154 million units that year and the current champion of most units sold ever where consoles are concerned. The dreamcast also snuck in there at 10.4 million.

The previous generation also saw the N64 losing significant ground to the Playstation 1 at 102 million ps1 vs 33 million N64. And let's face it, we all have very fond memories of the N64 so if it lost ground even here then maybe the Nintendo Brand itself isn't enough to hold a console afloat by itself in this particular market space. There is a market space for Nintendo though. They're just not owning it. They could do amazingly well by targeting the family/friendly/casual affordable console. $300 just isn't there when the $400 option is the best there is (pre-launch, we'll see how the cards fall in November).

Every Nintendo launch has been flagship titles like Mario and Zelda. After they release those games, that's when the smaller IP's like Kirby, Yoshi, come in. Then they solidify it with their second wave titles like Animal Crossing, and Pokemon. (In the case of their consoles SSB)

I think they got spooked with the impending PS4/XBO launch and launched before their games. The Sega Saturn made the same mistake with a surprise launch six months early that caught most distributors and developers off guard. While the saturn killed Sega in the end (not Dreamcast), I definitely don't think this is the end for the WiiU. Until they hit the $250 range or lower we're not going to see interest. Thankfully, $100 away from the ps4 price point is better than the earlier $50, but it's just not far enough and it's too high for what the system is viewed as (a family console, which is a smaller target market and significantly more casual).

I believe they can hit under $200 if they drop the $140 gamepad. But you and I have already had this discussion.

 

[Lightknight]

I hate that this isn't obvious to people.

All right kids, it's math time! First question: What number comes after seven?
Eight!
Now, what console came after the Wii?
Wii U!
So what generation is the Wii U in?
Seven point five!

It's literally kindergarten level math, and some people can't handle it.

First off, Nintendo does not decide where a console generation starts and ends. History may see the WiiU as a bookmark closing of the 7th generation though I don't expect that. For example, did you know that Nintendo was not present in the 2nd generation of gaming? This is because Nintendo's first generation entry came out in 1977. Nintendo Color TV Game [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_TV_Game]. 1977 happened to be the last year of that generation too. Their second entry was in 1983, which was the NES (sold 62 million units compared to Color TV Game's 3 million).

Some of the generations even overlap. Like the third generation (1983-1995) and the fourth generation (1988-1999).

So to say that it's simple math is basically calling calculus basic addition. It's completely incorrect and not linear at all and not based on any one company either.

When people say that the WiiU isn't a next gen console. I don't think they're literally stating that it isn't Nintendo's 8th generation entry. Just that it isn't worthy to be considered next gen.

Is it Nintendo's entry into the 8th generation? Sure, assuming they don't reboot in the middle of it and have a second entry as well in which case it would be AN entry and not THE entry. Also assuming that history doesn't put this entry in the 7th generation despite Nintendo's claim of it being 8th. That would be unexpected but possible. Just like they did with Nintendo's 1977 entry.

Is it a significant step in technological or innovative advancement to warrant feeling like it's a legitimate step into the 8th generation tier? The Gamecube was powerful enough, the Wii was innovative enough to change the gaming landscape, what is this WiiU though? People still don't know it's a new system and not some Wii peripheral.

The way to think about it is this. Let's say I take a graphing calculator and tape a stapler to it. Then I resell it as a gaming device (which I can legally do as games can be put into the game and I bought the calculator initially so it's my property to resell). Does that somehow mean that I can call it 8th generation just because I made it now? Apparently so. That's just silly.

 

[Warachia]

That worked out entirely differently though, you had to connect it through cables, it would have connection issues, and you couldn't play the games through the GBA, you still needed a tv and the GBA would have to supplement the Gamecube in some way, so it wasn't cross-play at all.

Never said it was cross play.I was just making the point that Nintendo were experimenting with connecting your handheld to your console years before Sony even released a handheld

My mistake then, I assumed when you inferred that they what the vita does from what Nintendo did, that you were saying the GBA does the same thing the Vita does.

Who copied who doesn't really matter, the point is that it's not new technology or exclusive to the Wii U which certainly adds to the argument that the Wii U is not "next gen".

You weren't paying attention to what we were talking about at all were you? We weren't talking about what generation the Wii U is, we were talking about whether or not Sony copied Nintendo with some of the capabilities of the PS Vita.

Perhaps it is you who isn't paying attention at all, take a look at the thread title.

Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea it was AGAINST THE LAW apparently to discuss other issues inside a thread, I mean, that never happens ever, how dare I, maybe I should also just bring up other conversations to chastise others for not talking about the exact topic that they're in, in which case you're at just as much fault as I am.

 

[Kinitawowi]

One of the biggest problems with describing the WiiU as 8th gen is that the majority of its launch titles were 7th gen ports. While it's clearly the newest iteration of Nintendo hardware technology, it's difficult to argue it as representing the launch of a new generation when most of what it had to offer was the previous generations' titles.

There's also the fact that numbering generations is a stupid idea anyway and ignores the multitude of other devices (PCs, old 8-bit home computers, etc) that people game on.

Add it up, and while as far as the timing is concerned it looks like the Wii U represents the first entry into the nominal 8th generation, most of what it has to offer - in terms of tech, titles and even gimmicks - is from the 7th. It's incredibly difficult to argue it as an 8th gen console in those circumstances. If it properly competes with and receives titles and ideas from the XBone and the PS4 - i.e. if third parties indicate an interest in developing for all three (yes, this matters, otherwise the Wii U might as well just be an entirely separate ecosystem totally devoid of comparison points), and produce Wii U software of comparable standard to that seen on the XBO and the PS4, not ambitious but technically inadequate knockoffs - it will be feasible to argue it as an 8th generation console.

 

[Jachwe]

When did console generations begin being defined by tech specs?

moving blocks on a screen - 8-bit - 16-bit - 32-bit - 3d - broad internet access - hd
we never ever did try to define a "genereation of consoles" by the tech used in the chronicles of the history of declaring a certain time frame as a generation.
you seem to be someone who does not know how periods are defined. you take some kind of measurement and then you just go with it and measure. even if you have such a straight forward method you still will see people argue with one another. you just seem ignorant on how periodisation in a history works.

Just ask yourself "When did national history begin being defined by wars?" or "when did world history being defined by trade?" these are similar questions to your own. these are not stupid questions when asked properly and sincerly because the answer to these questions will help you understand how history is written at a certain time from a certain angle. your question on the other hands just comes off as ignorant and arrogant. as if you want to say you are much better because you want to measure periods different and your maesurment is inherently better and the right way to do things because... reasons we all should appearently aggree upon because you said so. there are certain benefits defining a generation by the tech. first it is very easy to track. but even if that is the case you can still argue about certain dates when a generation ends and another begins because reality does not comform to a our cut and clean, nice and dry iamge of a history.
periods are usually marked by landmarks and even that can be argued. you can argue the wiiu is of such importance and is worthy of being credited as the start of the "next generation" but all your argument amounts to is "the wiiu is next gen because it is the next/current console of nintendo after the wii and because they have mario" which is not very convincing. ask yourself what kind of mascots do microsoft and playstation have that could start the "mascot wars"? is it reaonable or does it make sense to you to measure the history of consoles by "mascot wars" just because you liked the one so much when you were a little kid?

next time you ask a simple question think about it for a while and try to rationalise your thought process. draw from the well of knowledge that is your education and be creative about how to solve your question. if you get stuck at some point let this be your primary concern to solve the question. dont go into a room and ask a question exposing your ignorance about the topic you want to talk about. show the people you want to talk to that you have reflected on your question.
if you want constuctive answers to a question you need more than just ask the question but provide insight of your own problem to solve the question. Of course your questions is not asked to be answered but to be smug. the answer to the question is simple and you should know the answer: "we define console generations by spec because it is an easy and reliable way" or "because the marketing sells us the consoles based on their technical prowess since the 16-bit era (see the sega genesis commercials)" etc.
now you provide the mascot wars as the go to measurment of console generations. but you have to ask yourself if your way of doing things is reaonable. it is not. the mascot war was between sonic and mario during the 16 and 32 bit era. it is not a sound way of measuring soncole generations. it is not reasonable because the only reason you have given to do so is because you "miss the good old days when the mascot wars were raging and how much mor fun it was than soulless specs". this is not a reaonable line of thought and the only people who will agree with you are as unreasonable as you are. you might as well just post "i'm a big nintendo/mario fanboy. the wiiu is a nextgen console because it has mario games and nintendo manufactures it afer manufacturing the wii. who agrees?" you have wasted a lot of breath with your post for what amounts to a question like "what is your favourite football club?" and an answer of "the one in the town i happen to live in" and then you are a good hooligan and "support" your team.

 

[Dragonbums]

One of the biggest problems with describing the WiiU as 8th gen is that the majority of its launch titles were 7th gen ports.

I'm just going to say that on this part, the same can be said for both the PS4 and Xbox One at the moment as well. Only a couple of exclusives for their new consoles and everything else are just ports for this generation of games.

 

[Lightknight]

One of the biggest problems with describing the WiiU as 8th gen is that the majority of its launch titles were 7th gen ports.

I'm just going to say that on this part, the same can be said for both the PS4 and Xbox One at the moment as well. Only a couple of exclusives for their new consoles and everything else are just ports for this generation of games.

There's a difference between games being developed and launched concurrently with the predecessor vs launching with games that have already been available for half a year or more like Arkham City and Mass Effect 3 because the predecessor was too weak to get a port for them.

Look, you have admitted that Nintendo has dropped the ball in the games department. You don't have to defend them here. Nintendo themselves have admitted this as a major failure on their part. Followed up by marketing of the console and a failure to explain why the WiiU is worth purchasing because it's a new experience. That's Nintendo's words.

Frankly, it is just current generation tech at a new gen console price with precious few games. This is not the future of gaming as is. It's a rough time to be a Nintendo fan with such a mistep. If you think about it, Sony fans were in the same position with a company that had won the previous two generations by multiple times the competition combined and suddenly they were on the bottom until what, a month ago when they barely squeeked past the 360 into second place where console sales are concerned. Sony delivered a WAY overpriced device with hardware we weren't sure of. Its bluray saved it early on but the 360 offered what appeared to be better for cheaper (as the ps3's difficulty curve in programming caused nearly all multi-platform games to be developed on 360 and then ported over).

As a Nintendo fan, I have been frustrated at having to buy another console to play all the other games I want to play. I am unhappy with what is a $300 fee just for the honor of then being able to buy Nintendo software. I'm ok paying a premium if it means I get to play Nintendo AND the huge list of AAA multiplatform games but I'm no longer ok with it for just the ten or so Nintendo titles I usually get per generation and enjoy. This was an overpriced, underpowered, undersupported mess of a console. It may be considered 8th generation but it certainly can't stand tall amongst the competition.

 

[Dragonbums]

One of the biggest problems with describing the WiiU as 8th gen is that the majority of its launch titles were 7th gen ports.

I'm just going to say that on this part, the same can be said for both the PS4 and Xbox One at the moment as well. Only a couple of exclusives for their new consoles and everything else are just ports for this generation of games.

There's a difference between games being developed and launched concurrently with the predecessor vs launching with games that have already been available for half a year or more like Arkham City and Mass Effect 3 because the predecessor was too weak to get a port for them.

Look, you have admitted that Nintendo has dropped the ball in the games department. You don't have to defend them here. Nintendo themselves have admitted this as a major failure on their part. Followed up by marketing of the console and a failure to explain why the WiiU is worth purchasing because it's a new experience. That's Nintendo's words.

Frankly, it is just current generation tech at a new gen console price with precious few games. This is not the future of gaming as is. It's a rough time to be a Nintendo fan with such a mistep. If you think about it, Sony fans were in the same position with a company that had won the previous two generations by multiple times the competition combined and suddenly they were on the bottom until what, a month ago when they barely squeeked past the 360 into second place where console sales are concerned. Sony delivered a WAY overpriced device with hardware we weren't sure of. Its bluray saved it early on but the 360 offered what appeared to be better for cheaper (as the ps3's difficulty curve in programming caused nearly all multi-platform games to be developed on 360 and then ported over).

As a Nintendo fan, I have been frustrated at having to buy another console to play all the other games I want to play. I am unhappy with what is a $300 fee just for the honor of then being able to buy Nintendo software. I'm ok paying a premium if it means I get to play Nintendo AND the huge list of AAA multiplatform games but I'm no longer ok with it for just the ten or so Nintendo titles I usually get per generation and enjoy. This was an overpriced, underpowered, undersupported mess of a console. It may be considered 8th generation but it certainly can't stand tall amongst the competition.

I'm not addressing what game ports may or may not come to the Wii U in it's late life cycle though.

I'm talking about how OP is criticizing the Wii U for having launch titles that consisted of PS360 ports, when the PS4 and Xbox One's main lineup right now are PS360 ports as well.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm not addressing what game ports may or may not come to the Wii U in it's late life cycle though.

I'm talking about how OP is criticizing the Wii U for having launch titles that consisted of PS360 ports, when the PS4 and Xbox One's main lineup right now are PS360 ports as well.

The WiiU is a year in. The ps4/XBO haven't even launched yet and they already have more exclusive AAA IPs than Nintendo has mustered up during this time. At a year in the ps4 is supposed to have 26 games (24 if you don't include F2P games like I don't) that are exclusives.

I think Nintendo jumped the gun. Tried to take advantage of launching early but forgot the games required for a successul one. If they were launching right now with all the games they've released leading up to this point, they would be comparable. But only just.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Look- Nintendo was the one who decided not to compete directly with MS and Sony for the same market. They're the ones who decided that they would rather go do their own thing, and not be held to the traditional structure of the console race. Don't get huffy with people who are only pointing out the implications of that decision.

Just take a step back and look at yourselves: You're telling us that you don't care about specs- which have a very important, concrete effect on the system's primary function- but you do care about it being called an 8th generation console? You've got your priorities seriously mixed up there. You're upset about your position in the pissing match while claiming to not care about it at all.