I'm leaning toward one tablet per console at the moment, but it's only speculation based on the bandwidth required to stream uncompressed video data versus price.
I mean, to output four screens of video data over the air, we'd probably be looking near a GB/sec. Introduce compression to try and limit that, and the controllers will need more processing power and it will likely introduce lag.
Edit: Actually, I made that number up. It is almost certainly way, way too high, but I'm still not too sure whether the bandwidth required to output multiple screens of data is feasible.
the only local mp game it would effect would be something like Crystal Chronicles.
Everything else you probably wouldn't want or need anything more than a CC or Mote and Nunchuck.
Xenogears of Bore on
3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
0
mntorankusuI'm not sure how to use this thing....Registered Userregular
edited June 2011
I like the idea that, with the WiiU being more powerful than the others, if we get simple ports, the graphics will look the same but the frame rate will be better.
Too many games prioritize graphics at the expense of frame rate. If the WiiU can run the same things at 60fps that the other consoles struggle to run at 30, I'll be super happy.
mntorankusu on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Maybe nintendo is finally joining this gen by trying to kill off local multiplayer...
Yeah, with all the local multiplayer tech demos they have, I can see why you might think that.
JLM-AWP on
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
It's not the outputting to multiple screens that is the issue; we already do that in the computer world easily, although the framerate blows.
The issue is rendering. Getting the engine to draw all the effects and what not. If the data gets post-processed and then shunted to the wireless instead of to the HDMI, then all the better.
... Actually, this just hit me with something. Holy crap, you could use this with Rock Band 3 to calibrate your TV!
Maybe nintendo is finally joining this gen by trying to kill off local multiplayer...
Well limiting the Wii on U controller to 1 per console certainly stomps on those dull "use it for local multi super-secret hud and strategy" ideas which were flying around. And certainly restricts what gameplay uses could be made with it, if only one local player can take advantage of them.
Unless Ninty allows for multiple tabletrollers per console, of course.
In which case, better start saving $$$ if anyone is banking on having friends over for multiple screen rubbing action. Bring your own bottle, bring your own pad!
I'm leaning toward one tablet per console at the moment, but it's only speculation based on the bandwidth required to stream uncompressed video data versus price.
I mean, to output four screens of video data over the air, we'd probably be looking near a GB/sec. Introduce compression to try and limit that, and the controllers will need more processing power and it will likely introduce lag.
Edit: Actually, I made that number up. It is almost certainly way, way too high, but I'm still not too sure whether the bandwidth required to output multiple screens of data is feasible.
Let's guess the screens are WVGA (854x480) to maintain aspect ratio with 1080/720.
Using this thing (I think it assumes 25 fps, so we should err higher, really), we'd be looking at 23 MB/s.
802.11n has a theoretical upper limit of 600 Mbps, 75 MB/s. So using Wifi, you could hypothetically transmit to three controllers. But that's using the highest commercially available (that I'm aware of) protocol in optimal circumstances and erring on the low side of video quality.
Now, that being said, that doesn't mean you couldn't have, say, Crystal Chronicles on this, because the GBA screen from days of yore was HARDLY complex and could easily deal with a far lower refresh rate, to say the least. But it seems that having four of those controllers and not being able to, say, play a splitscreen game would be needlessly confusing and create a lot of backlash.
It's not the outputting to multiple screens that is the issue; we already do that in the computer world easily, although the framerate blows.
The issue is rendering. Getting the engine to draw all the effects and what not. If the data gets post-processed and then shunted to the wireless instead of to the HDMI, then all the better.
Assuming WVGA once more, that's 409920 pixels.
1080p is 2073600 pixels, or a fair bit more than 4x the size. It's doable, assuming a lower resolution screen.
I think the presentation was trying to emphasize a type of asymmetric multiplayer where one of the people playing is not actually playing the same exact game as the other people. I like the possibilities there.
It's not like anything is keeping developers from just making a split screen game using wiimotes or classic controllers.
Ultimanecat on
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
mntorankusuI'm not sure how to use this thing....Registered Userregular
edited June 2011
There's no reason the video can't be compressed. It's possible to do it without lag with simple hardware-based compression. And perceptually lossless video would still require a ton less bandwidth than uncompressed.
I'm leaning toward one tablet per console at the moment, but it's only speculation based on the bandwidth required to stream uncompressed video data versus price.
I mean, to output four screens of video data over the air, we'd probably be looking near a GB/sec. Introduce compression to try and limit that, and the controllers will need more processing power and it will likely introduce lag.
Edit: Actually, I made that number up. It is almost certainly way, way too high, but I'm still not too sure whether the bandwidth required to output multiple screens of data is feasible.
Let's guess the screens are WVGA (854x480) to maintain aspect ratio with 1080/720.
Using this thing (I think it assumes 25 fps, so we should err higher, really), we'd be looking at 23 MB/s.
802.11n has a theoretical upper limit of 600 Mbps, 75 MB/s. So using Wifi, you could hypothetically transmit to three controllers. But that's using the highest commercially available (that I'm aware of) protocol in optimal circumstances and erring on the low side of video quality.
Now, that being said, that doesn't mean you couldn't have, say, Crystal Chronicles on this, because the GBA screen from days of yore was HARDLY complex and could easily deal with a far lower refresh rate, to say the least. But it seems that having four of those controllers and not being able to, say, play a splitscreen game would be needlessly confusing and create a lot of backlash.
Basically, expect a single controller.
Yeah, there are faster wireless protocols but they are largely proprietary and expensive at this point. Not saying Nintendo can't do it, not even saying they won't, but it'll take some creative engineering and / or expense on their part, and I'm not sure that's something we should realistically expect from an affordable piece of consumer electronics.
OnLive manages to stream just fine over the internet using a cable connection. I would imagine that rendering power would be a bigger issue than wireless bandwidth here
I feel bad for the people who get so mad at their games they'd lift this thing up and snap it over their knee.
Heh.
I've been playing through the Shiren the Wanderer game for the DS lately, and there's an NPC in there who eventually offers you bungee jumping. Before you can jump, you have to agree to a waiver saying that if something goes wrong and you die and lose everything on you, you won't throw your DS.
I feel bad for the people who get so mad at their games they'd lift this thing up and snap it over their knee.
I'm more worried about kids being, well, kids and leaving controllers on the floor to be stepped on.
Hell, I've stepped on my 360 controller a time or two while drunk, myself. All it does is make me curse. Not curse, get the first aid kit to remove glass shards from my foot, and then buy a new $texas controller.
OnLive manages to stream just fine over the internet using a cable connection. I would imagine that rendering power would be a bigger issue than wireless bandwidth here
Streaming HD video over the internet is not the same as streaming uncompressed video over the air.
For one thing, OnLive still has to contend with significant lag (although what strides they've made are impressive). Secondly, they compress the everloving shit out of the video and depend on you having a PC (including at least a full CPU and probably a graphics card) to decompress it on the other end. Thirdly, when used over Wi-fi, the service generally will automatically compress the video even further.
We'll know for sure as soon as somebody pipes up during an interview.
Ultimanecat on
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
Thoughts:
There's concern that the Upad is for one player only but the party games will only use the wiimotes.
...
You know what?
People that love the party games will use the wiimotes, much like they always have.
People that love deeper experience games will use the Upad.
People that want to play with other people with the Upad just might be able to do so online.
There's concern that the Upad is for one player only but the party games will only use the wiimotes.
...
You know what?
People that love the party games will use the wiimotes, much like they always have.
People that love deeper experience games will use the Upad.
People that want to play with other people with the Upad just might be able to do so online.
Hell, it's not completely insane.
However, I would still love to be able to play Crystal Chronicles or Four Swords locally.
Imagine an FPS that doesn't even display anything on the TV, but gives everyone their own screen so that nobody can screenwatch...and you're also all online together.
There's concern that the Upad is for one player only but the party games will only use the wiimotes.
...
You know what?
People that love the party games will use the wiimotes, much like they always have.
People that love deeper experience games will use the Upad.
People that want to play with other people with the Upad just might be able to do so online.
Hell, it's not completely insane.
However, I would still love to be able to play Crystal Chronicles or Four Swords locally.
Imagine an FPS that doesn't even display anything on the TV, but gives everyone their own screen so that nobody can screenwatch...and you're also all online together.
Chills!
If the Triple-U sells like they expect it to, everyone will have the tablet. Same with the 3DS. I'd really like to see them push integration.
One insane thing, though? Everything, EVERYTHING Sony showed with the Vita yesterday should be doable on the Triple-U, save for the back-touch.
One insane thing, though? Everything, EVERYTHING Sony showed with the Vita yesterday should be doable on the Triple-U, save for the back-touch.
And multitouch screen, and both front and back cameras (to my knowledge WiiU is only front), and also being completely portable. But yeah, everything else. :P
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
I meant the data transfer and the like. I don't know if you'd need a front-facing camera on the controller...And maybe I'm mixing 3DS and WiiU in my head.
I'd love to have a cheap, capacitive screen that could do stylus pinpoint precision, but I don't think we are there yet. Hell, I'd love to see the controller using paper-thin/light OLED so this thing could be rolled/unrolled, but.. See, now I'm just doing pipe dreams.
Katsuya Eguchi, who is working on a five-player Wii U prototype here, doesn't make it sound like that'll be a requirement. In fact, it may not even happen at all.
"We're considering our options with maybe two screens," Eguchi told Kotaku, who said he considers multiple New Controller games to be "an interesting idea." That would mean games that used two new Wii U controllers. Eguchi's five-player prototype, here at E3, has one person using a new controller and four other people using Wii Remote-Nunchuck combos.
While Eguchi didn't explain why Nintendo isn't looking into four-new-controller gaming, it's possible that the Wii U couldn't output to four screens at once (plus a TV). It's also simply possible that Nintendo would find that configuration too pricey for its customers. Nintendo hasn't said what the new controller will cost. But Eguchi answered my question about whether gamers should be concerned about the controller's price by saying that "I do understand that if the price is too high that would be an obstacle."
This system is begging for a new Pokemon Snap game.
Imagine something like the baseball demo seen at 1:12 here, except with less baseball and more Pokemon, and with the controller acting as your camera.
Online. With streaming content and new areas constantly being added. God, I know I dream too much, but Nintendo can deliver these things if they were profitable.
Katsuya Eguchi, who is working on a five-player Wii U prototype here, doesn't make it sound like that'll be a requirement. In fact, it may not even happen at all.
"We're considering our options with maybe two screens," Eguchi told Kotaku, who said he considers multiple New Controller games to be "an interesting idea." That would mean games that used two new Wii U controllers. Eguchi's five-player prototype, here at E3, has one person using a new controller and four other people using Wii Remote-Nunchuck combos.
While Eguchi didn't explain why Nintendo isn't looking into four-new-controller gaming, it's possible that the Wii U couldn't output to four screens at once (plus a TV). It's also simply possible that Nintendo would find that configuration too pricey for its customers. Nintendo hasn't said what the new controller will cost. But Eguchi answered my question about whether gamers should be concerned about the controller's price by saying that "I do understand that if the price is too high that would be an obstacle."
Still a bit of a non-answer as I'm reading it, but at least multi-New Controller (is that what it's called?) gaming doesn't seem to have been ruled out completely. I doubt nobody at Nintendo seriously thought of this, so my guess still lies with the likely combination of technical and money considerations.
So because Nintendo isnt copying everyone elses online features, they arent innovative?
Quite the opposite: Nintendo don't follow. They're unresponsive to industry trends until they've been internally convinced of the benefits, and they have a different idea about what gaming should be than Microsoft or Sony: Nintendo is a toy company, whereas Microsoft and Sony are technology companies.
Nintendo did say something to the effect that they've been too "jimaeshugi" with the Wii. Jimaeshugi means an insistance on developing everything yourself. I expect that this means in the least they'll be looking at the models set by PSN and Live for their WiiU online service.
And I think for all the talk of Nintendo being a conservative company, it seems like they take huge risks every generation.
CygnusZ on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
But it's the type of risk you need to make to be successful.
Posts
I mean, to output four screens of video data over the air, we'd probably be looking near a GB/sec. Introduce compression to try and limit that, and the controllers will need more processing power and it will likely introduce lag.
Edit: Actually, I made that number up. It is almost certainly way, way too high, but I'm still not too sure whether the bandwidth required to output multiple screens of data is feasible.
Everything else you probably wouldn't want or need anything more than a CC or Mote and Nunchuck.
Too many games prioritize graphics at the expense of frame rate. If the WiiU can run the same things at 60fps that the other consoles struggle to run at 30, I'll be super happy.
they mentioned calling plays on it in football games
Yeah, with all the local multiplayer tech demos they have, I can see why you might think that.
The issue is rendering. Getting the engine to draw all the effects and what not. If the data gets post-processed and then shunted to the wireless instead of to the HDMI, then all the better.
... Actually, this just hit me with something. Holy crap, you could use this with Rock Band 3 to calibrate your TV!
Well limiting the Wii on U controller to 1 per console certainly stomps on those dull "use it for local multi super-secret hud and strategy" ideas which were flying around. And certainly restricts what gameplay uses could be made with it, if only one local player can take advantage of them.
Unless Ninty allows for multiple tabletrollers per console, of course.
In which case, better start saving $$$ if anyone is banking on having friends over for multiple screen rubbing action. Bring your own bottle, bring your own pad!
Let's guess the screens are WVGA (854x480) to maintain aspect ratio with 1080/720.
Using this thing (I think it assumes 25 fps, so we should err higher, really), we'd be looking at 23 MB/s.
802.11n has a theoretical upper limit of 600 Mbps, 75 MB/s. So using Wifi, you could hypothetically transmit to three controllers. But that's using the highest commercially available (that I'm aware of) protocol in optimal circumstances and erring on the low side of video quality.
Now, that being said, that doesn't mean you couldn't have, say, Crystal Chronicles on this, because the GBA screen from days of yore was HARDLY complex and could easily deal with a far lower refresh rate, to say the least. But it seems that having four of those controllers and not being able to, say, play a splitscreen game would be needlessly confusing and create a lot of backlash.
Basically, expect a single controller.
Assuming WVGA once more, that's 409920 pixels.
1080p is 2073600 pixels, or a fair bit more than 4x the size. It's doable, assuming a lower resolution screen.
I was thinking of this too... they were pretty clear on that being a possibility.
It's not like anything is keeping developers from just making a split screen game using wiimotes or classic controllers.
Yeah, there are faster wireless protocols but they are largely proprietary and expensive at this point. Not saying Nintendo can't do it, not even saying they won't, but it'll take some creative engineering and / or expense on their part, and I'm not sure that's something we should realistically expect from an affordable piece of consumer electronics.
Heh.
I've been playing through the Shiren the Wanderer game for the DS lately, and there's an NPC in there who eventually offers you bungee jumping. Before you can jump, you have to agree to a waiver saying that if something goes wrong and you die and lose everything on you, you won't throw your DS.
I'm more worried about kids being, well, kids and leaving controllers on the floor to be stepped on.
Hell, I've stepped on my 360 controller a time or two while drunk, myself. All it does is make me curse. Not curse, get the first aid kit to remove glass shards from my foot, and then buy a new $texas controller.
Streaming HD video over the internet is not the same as streaming uncompressed video over the air.
For one thing, OnLive still has to contend with significant lag (although what strides they've made are impressive). Secondly, they compress the everloving shit out of the video and depend on you having a PC (including at least a full CPU and probably a graphics card) to decompress it on the other end. Thirdly, when used over Wi-fi, the service generally will automatically compress the video even further.
We'll know for sure as soon as somebody pipes up during an interview.
There's concern that the Upad is for one player only but the party games will only use the wiimotes.
...
You know what?
People that love the party games will use the wiimotes, much like they always have.
People that love deeper experience games will use the Upad.
People that want to play with other people with the Upad just might be able to do so online.
Hell, it's not completely insane.
However, I would still love to be able to play Crystal Chronicles or Four Swords locally.
Imagine an FPS that doesn't even display anything on the TV, but gives everyone their own screen so that nobody can screenwatch...and you're also all online together.
Chills!
If the Triple-U sells like they expect it to, everyone will have the tablet. Same with the 3DS. I'd really like to see them push integration.
One insane thing, though? Everything, EVERYTHING Sony showed with the Vita yesterday should be doable on the Triple-U, save for the back-touch.
And multitouch screen, and both front and back cameras (to my knowledge WiiU is only front), and also being completely portable. But yeah, everything else. :P
I'd love to have a cheap, capacitive screen that could do stylus pinpoint precision, but I don't think we are there yet. Hell, I'd love to see the controller using paper-thin/light OLED so this thing could be rolled/unrolled, but.. See, now I'm just doing pipe dreams.
Imagine something like the baseball demo seen at 1:12 here, except with less baseball and more Pokemon, and with the controller acting as your camera.
http://kotaku.com/5809706/nintendo-looking-into-games-that-support-two-new-controllers
Online. With streaming content and new areas constantly being added. God, I know I dream too much, but Nintendo can deliver these things if they were profitable.
Still a bit of a non-answer as I'm reading it, but at least multi-New Controller (is that what it's called?) gaming doesn't seem to have been ruled out completely. I doubt nobody at Nintendo seriously thought of this, so my guess still lies with the likely combination of technical and money considerations.
http://e3.nintendo.com/hw/#/video/HW_DI_Harada
it remind me of a "the fuck" look.
or for the renegade pick, he just saw the PSV price.
Nintendo did say something to the effect that they've been too "jimaeshugi" with the Wii. Jimaeshugi means an insistance on developing everything yourself. I expect that this means in the least they'll be looking at the models set by PSN and Live for their WiiU online service.
And I think for all the talk of Nintendo being a conservative company, it seems like they take huge risks every generation.
Has anyone else called the controller the WiiMU yet?