Talk:Wii U

Communication with the GamePad

Listed as:

• Wireless communication with console based on IEEE 802.11n

Where's the source? Freddicus (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for delay, here:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=42272838&postcount=3801 and here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41490721&postcount=818 I was going to make the talk section right now to explain this, that IGN article citing bluetooth is very unreliable as they just assume it, it's pretty old as well. Bluetooth is only used for Backward Compatability for Wii accessories, it's not available to user interaction so it shouldn't be listed in connectivity, but the infobox doesn't allow to make custom entries. I have now used alternative, i hope it's as clear it can be. Xowets (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Neogaf forum posts, and forum posts in general, are not reliable sources and are not useable. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just saying that can't be used in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Most proper gaming sites link to neogaf, and neogaf has it's own "banned sites", it's very well established among the gaming community that IGN is a very unreliable source as well as wikipedia. If you cite info from wikipedia and argue about it you may get banned on neogaf because wikipedia consitently takes unreliable sources. Wikipedia would have not been looked upon like unreliable if it wasn't for linking to IGNorants/gamespot/gametrailers, I am on neogaf and many other tech forums, yes I am the same guy who researched that and posted it in the wiiu tech thread on neogaf. Whatever source you use, WiiU does not have bluetooth connectivity, you cannot connect any of your own 3rd party devices, it's non-user accessible nor officialy acknowledged by nintendo and does not list bluetooth in their feature list, it's not on the box, it's not in the manuals, it never did. USB and Network Wi-Fi is user accessible and therefore connectable to any 3rd party device for that purpose. I've had these examples of these arguments on wikipedia, it's silly, I mean, now I need to get one gaming site to make it's article about a neogaf post and that by wikipedia rules will make that information magically verified. Silly. Xowets (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I linked above, Neogaf/messageboard/forums violate WP:SPS - it's too easy to fake information through sources like that. Any old person could go and make a thread full of lies, and use that as a source. And again, as I already said before, I'm not arguing whether or not it's true, just that Neogaf can't be used as the source to prove it. Whether you find it "silly" or not, Wikipedia revolves around what can be verified through reliable sources. Neogaf is not one. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So you think that it's valid to say that WiiUDaily is more verifiable an therefore reliable than neogaf? The information as content matters, not location. I just don't get it, why isn't there an exception for situations like this, there is nothing to verify the information is already there from nintendo, I don't see any media site making it more correct than it is, there is no point of view there is no side and other side, because it's just fact, it is not bluetooth, fact. Neogaf and any other well established tech forums have great communities, those people won't gain anything by lying, but media site companies have a lot to gain if they make up false/inaccurate information. You verify it, why do you need a site, early page editors should have that say as well as others in the talk page, the rule should be changed and improved. The information is there, it's on patents, it's on promotional material, there is nothing more to verify. Xowets (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If this doesn't hold at least remove bluetooth from time being until release when, you guessed it, another neogaf user, is planning to open up a WiiU to inspect all the hardware in side, so it won't be ture again because he posted his findings on neogaf forums, would it be true if he exclusively did it for IGNorants ? Xowets (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it's like you know, I don't even care about these BS rules, nor about wikipedia in general, the only reason I came here is because wikipedia spreads false information and then non-techies come in forum threads whining about some crap they've read on wikipedia. My reason was to fix this, so less people would get fed wrong information. Other than that, I've stopped taking wikipedia seriously long time ago. Your stupid sources, rules don't change any facts, WiiU GamePad doesn't use bluetooth, so delete bluetooth the fuck out or fix it so it says it's only for internal use for Wii devices, the user cannot interact with that connection method officially, not the same as USB and Network Wi-Fi, update the article at release when this may be revealed and posted on IGNorants/Gaytrailers, Xowets (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

While I understand your sentiment, Sergecross73 is correct: Neogaf is not a source that may be used on Wikipedia. You say what matters is whether or not something is true, but strictly speaking that isn't what matters: WP:V specifically states that what matters is "verifiability, not fact". This may seem strange but there is a very good reason for it. You say that it is "just a fact" that it does not use Bluetooth, and I'm inclined to believe that this is correct (I'm not even sure Bluetooth has the throughput to support a remote display which updates in real time). However, it is very easy to falsely claim that something is "true". In fact I'll do it right now: "it is a fact that the Gamepad connects to the console via an IR port". Now, this statement would be fairly easy to fabricate support for as long as the reader doesn't do any digging. As such, if I wanted to, I could fairly easily post this fabrication on Neogaf, thus providing a source which in your world would be suitable for Wikipedia.

Incidentally, the same goes for fansites, which I think WiiUDaily would count as, and for the same reasons (far too easy for false info to slip through). In fact, the only reason many other sites are accepted is that they have set a precedent for having a reasonable level of editorial oversight, fact-checking etc. Others, such as Kotaku, are sufficiently good in some areas to be used, but not in others, and as such are situational sources.

By the way, I don't know for a fact whether or not the GamePad connects via Bluetooth, but it is fairly easy to prove that the Wii U is Bluetooth capable:

1. Wii remotes communicate via Bluetooth
2. The Wii U is compatible with Wii Remotes
3. Therefore the Wii U must have Bluetooth of some description

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Xowets, there's not much left to discuss here. It's as Alphathon and I have already said. Using reliable sources is a pretty absolute thing to follow here on Wikipedia, and it's pretty clear cut Neogaf/messageboards don't qualify. It doesn't matter how many childish names you apply to websites like IGN or GameTrailers, it doesn't change that there is consensus that they are reliable as far as Wikipedia standards goes. You seem to have a lot of issues against Wikipedia standard. I'd suggest either learning it, getting used to having your edits undone, or writing somewhere with standards closer to your own personal ones.
• As far as "Wii U Daily", I agree it shouldn't be used. The article has been altered a ton in the last week, with everything being announced last week on the 13th, and someone slipped that in there. I just happened to catch your comments regarding Neogaf on my watchlist. (EDIT: Where is Wii U Daily used? I can't find it to remove it, unless it's already gone...) Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify ...

• I haven't said it doesn't use Bluetooth, I meant that in all perfect case it should not be listed in the user connectivity section but as we know we cannot make custom points in infobox so an alternative would need to be made, so first of all, thank you for realizing and clarifying the use of Bluetooth as it seems this was already done while i was gone. Secondly, why patents aren't allowed as a at lease some base of this matter, ... i know stuff is not final there but taking circumstantial evidence, since all of the patents with WiiU show 2 separate controller communication modules and for like a year, it's not just one patent, it is as strong as moon in the night sky that GamePad does not use bluetooth because the separate "terminal communication module" goes throu CODEC LSI which compresses data before sending to GamePad and GamePad uncompresses data before sending to onboard display LCD. The Wi-Fi/WLAN Network communication module is also separate so that's the third thing. IR port is used for TV control i hope you know that, yeah i can gather that was an example, the reply to that would be that serious neogaf users as well as moderators DO check that and shut it down, fake stuff is always shot down and the joker banned. I have been following tech threads on gaf for more than a year now, I've seen 3 occurences when someone did a fake screenshot and then after a while admitted it was a joke he was banned the next day.
• I haven't CLAIMED to 100% prove IEEE 802.11 use for GamePad, i've gathered research and posted that there and never claimed it's for sure because the patent says clearly they can use combinations or other methods if it proves better, it's probably secured connection with modifications that aren't compatible with the standard just like DS has the so called ni-fi, where a custom Router firmware is required to detect and intercept the signal. Here is the promotional material that puts the final nail in the Bluetooth cofin http://press.nintendo.com/wiiu (username: wiiu ;password: nintendo) in third link on the hardware list ; when I found that the backend of the GamePad shows 5GHZ mark, then I made this post: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=42272838&postcount=3801 . Fact or no fact or whatever, Wikipedia has full verifiability for Bluetooth that is doesn't operate on 5GHz, never, far from it. Plus what has already been known for a long time is that Bluetooth doesn't nearly remotely have enough bandwidth (transfer speed) to be able to transfer video and audio as well as other data on such a level with no lag. Xowets (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"IR port is used for TV control i hope you know that, yeah i can gather that was an example, the reply to that would be that serious neogaf users as well as moderators DO check that and shut it down, fake stuff is always shot down and the joker banned. I have been following tech threads on gaf for more than a year now, I've seen 3 occurences when someone did a fake screenshot and then after a while admitted it was a joke he was banned the next day."

Yes, the IR example was absolutely not supposed to be an actual claim, but an example of how easy it is to make false claims (however unbelievable/impossible). However, the way in which you defend NeoGaf demonstrates at least one of the reasons why we can't use it as a source: regardless of what happens after it occurs, it is still possible to post erroneous information on NeoGaf. It is a forum, and so any editorial controls are used post hoc. As such, it is very easy for erroneous details (good faith or otherwise) to slip through. Your second paragraph also shows why it can't be used: your post is original research.

Essentially when dealing with forums (fora?) the "source" is the user who posted in info, not the forum itself, simply by virtue of the format. It is conceivable that a forum post could be used as a source in the same way that blogs can sometimes be used as a source, but in order to do so one would have to prove that the poster was an expert in the field (see WP:SPS). In cases such as this, only the actual engineers of the hardware would likely qualify as "experts", at least at this stage.

Also remember that there is no deadline: there is no rush to add in how the controller communicates with the console and it can certainly wait for reliable sources. However it is done, we will be able to verify it eventually.

By the way, do you know that the GamePad doesn't use Bluetooth? The sourced IGN article seems to imply that it uses bluetooth for the "controller" part and some other RF tech for the screen. However, if you really want to remove said information from the infobox then I don't suppose that's a problem (the IGN source is a tag ambiguous I have to admit). As I said, we can wait for a better source.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 14:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why I was in a rush was exactly because non-nintendo avreage non-tech gamer would find ANY bit thing to discredit the WiiU , as many PS360 people have not been following the tech they expect WiiU is 5-year old tech and as barely powerful as X360, I know it'll be all sorted out once the hardware get's opened up and there's proof no more words, I just wanted to help in stop spreading very unaccurate stuff so it doesn't make BS negative press such as sites who never check anything and just post random rumors. And I have to tell you nothing on neogaf or any other forum or any other gaming site is 100%, ofcourse I don't take it as such, it's just meausred in level of accuracy, and for example bluetooth for GamePad is very unlikely, to say that it's very unnacurate, there is a percentage, because most of what I deal with it's analysis of existing information, and we don't make micheael pachter-style predictions, we get out the best assumption as possible on the information we gathered and anyone could gather, it's constructive speculation, not just the stuff I posted, there was other people telling that they asked a real nintendo rep at game show about the range of the GamePad and he told them they saw one working at more than 30 yards, everyone knows bluetooth doesn't reach that far. I know it doesn't use exactly the 802.11 because as I said nintendo will do modifications which make it non-standard and incompatible with any Wi-Fi stuff. I'm just naming it like this to refeer to, because it's the closest possible term and as accurate as possible on the indications we have. I just wasn't explaining this early enough I kind of expected to have trouble getting this sourced right but it's at least something before the console gets out, I was going to provide justification and explanation before this section was made, but someone beat me to it asking about the source. Okay fine I'm not forcing to get that neogaf post cited, just keep bluetooth for Wii backward compatability only (all wii accessories), there was another guy yesterday coming to my aid (probably not noticing this talk first) saying exactly what I was explaining that Connectivity entry in infobox is too vague, so it usually means user-accessible features, but bluetooth is not a user-accessible feature on Wii nor WiiU, it's not officially recognized as a connectivity method. Can you see if there could be a custom infobox entry for specifically user-inaccessible (internal) connectivity methods, for all other devices, that would be great. Xowets (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Also excuse english, it's worst when I have a lot on mind to say, I'm not english guy,... no, I'm not below 20yrs old.Xowets (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No source ever will be 100% accurate though Techni (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you inferring? The Wii U is so complex that no one source could fully understand it? Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel that as long as we are unsure about this claim and its source, we shouldn't make the specific claim at this time. Hamez0 (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If that's so, then i think it's best to remove bluetooth altogether from that list, as was it said, it will not be user-accessible i am 99% sure as pointed out by others, and you don't see BT anywhere on nintendo sheets of tech specs or features. Xowets (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

IGN is wrong, as usual, and no "consensus" will change that fact. Wikipedia kids will continue to be wrong for the sake of being wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.117.22 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And you prefer the alternative, listening to random editors without any sort of proof, or random messageboard posts? This is what you believe will get you closer to the truth? Sergecross73 msg me 18:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request GPU

I request editing the GPU part in tech specs.

The Wii U may have a E6760 based GPU, but it is neither a GPGPU ("General Purpose computing on GPU", that isn't even hardware!) neither a E6760+ (which doesn't exist), neither known to be enhanced.

It is a GPGPU (Iwata himself stated as much) but not specifics about the model have been released beyond rumors.ViperEmpire (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that despite Iwata claiming that it is a GPGPU, the term is rarely used to describe actually pieces of hardware that are capable of general purpose computing but are designed as graphics processing units and is more regularly used to discuss the field of computation that uses GPUs to perform general purpose computation. In translating what Iwata said, it would be better to describe it as a "GPGPU capable GPU" instead of what is there presently. I agree that the rumors of an E6760 are not confirmed from any reliable sources. This blog post is the best source I could find.134.173.203.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's true that Iwata literally said it, then it's going to take something better than a non-notable Nintendo blog to trump that... Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done I changed the language and ref to reflect nintendo's official page which calls it "AMD Radeon™-based High Definition GPU." Sailsbystars (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Locked?

Awww its Locked We Cant Edit it anymore Only the Admins Can we Cant? :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionelTheDeal (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Not quite. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A GPGPU isn't a physical thing

Any GPU with modern unified shaders can perform GPGPU functions, a GPGPU isn't a "thing" to be inside the Wii U. I know where that came from, Iwata said the Wii U has "a GPGPU", but it's more correct to say a GPU with GPGPU capability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.94.15 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

firstly if the 3rd party reliable source says that we dnt argue with it, to say different to the source would be original research. but on another note ifa gpu that does gpgpu isnt a gpgpu then what are you tryign to say it is ? because if it does something then by english defintion it is that.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

GPGPU is a GPU feature, whatever wikipedia says about the source, it cannot change reality. Xowets (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia can change reality if that what the sources say, we dnt make our own assumptions of what the sources say we put it as the sources does but written spo not to copyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

1st unsigned IP is refering to the fact that GPGPU means "General Processing GPU", not a physical piece of hardware. It could be just that Iwata missused the term while referring to something about programming / architectural design. Qwerty12356 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wii U GamePad features

I thought I would add this after reading what was listed on the page. I believe this is one of the most important parts of the page for the fact the controller is what makes the system so expensive for Nintendo (they themselves in a financial report said it will be sold at a loss) and will only increase when someone has a chance to take on apart.

What's missing in Gamepad section that I noticed:

Gamepad has infrared light in top of controller for communication with other devices (seen this for myself on a demo unit, I'm sure this can be confirmed through another source) Ok...just checked and noticed it is included in the tech spec below its section, so maybe mention the ability to communicate with other devices using this "transceiver".

The infrared sensor strip is mentioned but not elaborated on about its use (for use with Wiimotes camera in Wii games possibly WiiU games as well) unlike the NFC sensor which is elaborated on.

The technical spec section does not specify the cameras resolution which is 1.3MP

The screen size and type is specified but not video resolution which is 854 x 480 I found a source to support this. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412292,00.asp 71.3.207.240 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)OmegaRed 11/29/2012

Wii U can support two gamepads but has been reported to drop frame rates to 30FPS

and as an added note about the Pro controllers likeness to XBOX 360's....Microsoft and Nintendo were sued over their controller designs (Nintendo's Gamecube controller that is)...it was said Microsoft copied Nintendo who ripped off someone else, thus they both got sued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.193.212 (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

New Wii U logo

I think someone should update the Wii U logo here on Wikipedia, since that is no longer the current logo of the system.

It now has a darker tone of blue instead of the more light one, in the 2011 version.

Take a look for yourselves.

--Arkhandar (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it already has the new logo. Flyoffacliff (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

target consumer?

in this article, it states that nintendo is targeting ªcoreª gamers. however,b after watching the recent ads i have reason to believe they are targeting a more broad audience. such as families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.100.25 (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The part about core gamers is sourced and we will need another source to say otherwise before we change that and a personal analysis of adds would go against WP:OR so it can't be used. Also even if specific adds were aimed towards families does not mean that Nintendo is not aiming for the core audience as well since they could very well try to do both.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

WiiU External Memory Usage

I think it might be worthwhile to update somehow into the information of external memory capabilities that the WiiU will not allow you to save downloaded software to a SD card. If your 8/32GB runs out you will have to purchase an external drive that utalise's USB http://www.nintendo.co.jp/wiiu/support/qa/software/index.html A translation of the relevant section can be found here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44199378&postcount=1

Q. Where is software that I purchased a download for saved to?

A. Internal memory or USB media. Download software can't be saved to the SD card.

Original text being

ダウンロード購入したソフトはどこに保存されるのですか？

本体保存メモリーまたはUSB記録メディアに保存されます。SDカードには保存できません。

Weeman com (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this change. I have read many places the SD storage is for Wii saves and Wii downloaded content. Also probably for media content such as pictures and music. Also it is stated in the acticle that it is expandable with HDD...it supports any type of USB storage such as thumb drives and solid state drives. As stated by Nintendo "It also supports external USB storage" does not specify what type. http://www.nintendo.com/wiiu/features/tech-specs/ 71.3.207.240 (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)OmegaRed

Most Wii Titles And Wii U Games on E Shop?!?

I Heard Nintendo Will Be porting Games to The Virtual Console Most Games Can Be Downloaded on E Shop is That True? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LionelTheDeal (talk • contribs) 07:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been said that each game developer decides themselves if their games are added to the Eshop. It's not porting, since the games are supported without actual modification to the games programming. It is also the responsibility of each developer to assure that their game will run properly, Nintendo simply hosts them on the Eshop servers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.148.12 (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Reggie Fils Aime clarifies on GameCube game Virtual Console speculation.

Reggie Fils Aime officially stated that there is not currently any official announcement about GameCube games appearing on the Wii U Eshop, which would include virtual console. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.148.12 (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2012‎

sounds like we should pull it from the page then. I'll do it-FUNKAMATIC ~talk 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be better, rather than remove it outright, to keep it in there, and then add RFA's commentary clarifying it. Otherwise it may be re-added by less-informed editors. (Assuming this is true - that IP didn't supply a source for this informatio as far as I can see. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hold your horses ... "no official announcement" is not a denial, much less a debunking. That's more akin to the usual "we don't comment on rumors or speculation" than anything. The only statement that would necessitate the removal of this phrase is something along the lines of the following: "Nintendo will not release GameCube titles in any form on the Wii U." I'll be restoring the phrase to a modified form suggesting the possibility instead of it being definitive either way. However, if consensus says it should be removed outright, I'll go with it. Until that time, we go with the cited sources, instead of an uncited statement from a talk page. --McDoobAU93 18:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

RAM mistake

Under technical specs, it states that the Wii U has 512MB of RAM. However, the site that it has cited for the info states that it has 4 4Gb (512MB) coors (correct term?), which means it totals out at over 2GB. This should be changed as it is misconstruing the information so as to present the Wii U with a quarter of its actual power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.1.63 (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wii Thrii

What is the "Wii Thrii" in the HTML comment in this article?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's made up nonsense. Good catch, I've removed it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You think if I search,I would find anything on it?~Tailsman6720:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.16.121 (talk)

If it were a real thing, I'd think it'd be relatively well known. Also, consoles are never named that far in advance. We still don't know the final name of the "Xbox 720", let alone the successor's name for the Wii U, a system that's been out for a week. Sergecross73 msg me 20:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So it's kinda like Xbox TEN?74.163.16.121 (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

At least Xbox Ten was a rumor, I don't even see rumors for a "Wii thrii", it looks like most hits are pun names for the Wii's third birthday. This doesn't even seem to make rumor status. I think it was just well-hidden vandalism. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Tech specs

I'm too lazy, you know what to do. [1], [2], and [3] « Ryūkotsusei » 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these are the sorts of articles we should be using for sourcing on specs, not Neogaf or any of those random blogs people are always trying to use. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Real-world image

I hereby submit my image of the system and the gamepad, feel free to use it in the article if you deem it good enough. Cheers! Takimata (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I replaced it. I'd rather have a real picture than an illustration that may not be 100% accurate. « Ryūkotsusei » 16:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, you're very welcome. I corrected some things in the image in the meantime. Takimata (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Wii U GPU has eDRAM? No source

Reference 80 does not mention the GPU having eDRAM, I can only find mentions of the CPU having eDRAM in the press releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.32.39 (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"The GPU itself also contains quite a large on-chip memory." http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wiiu/console/0/0 --46.223.55.116 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring over Specs

There has been a lot of reverting over the tech specs, between two versions, shown here.

Now, I don't know much about the numbers, I don't personally care about tech jargon, but we need to stop reverting this endlessly and discuss it out here.

Personally, I'm against using the twitter account as a source, something like this should be verifiable from a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Several information in this articel goes back to the same source (tri-core processor, codename Latte and Espresso). Much more important is that this guy was involved in hacking the ps3, nintendo wii and now the wii u. This is why many reliable tech- and news-magazines take up this story: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-wii-hacker-reveals-wii-u-cpu-secrets, http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/11/29/nintendo-wii-u-cpu-and-gpu-clock-speeds-revealed/, http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/29/wii-u-cpu-gpu-details-uncovered, ... --46.223.55.116 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but use one of those sources, not a Twitter account. That will lend to more credibility, and be less likely to be removed by other editors. (Assuming the articles covered the info in questions.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

What credibility? There's absolutely no difference between either sources since the all the other sources source the Twitter account.---Arkhandar (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Alone, it's just a random person's Twitter account. Not typically useable. With using the reliable source's account of it, it's been verified by an editor/staff/writer, even if it does trace back to the work of the random Twitter account. And again, like I said, for future reference, people are far less likely to argue/contest this if it's backed up by a website that's considered reliable. If no other reason, use the video game sources because it's more likely to stick in the long run. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

the section on wii compatibility should be extended

one thing that could be added is that it upscales wii games to 1080p. i dont however have a source because i found it out myself through testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that's not true... Sergecross73 msg me 00:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Giant Bomb and 1UP.com have confirmed it doesn't upscale to 1080. While not a reliable source, the IGN Wiki explains why the image looks a little nice even though it's not actually upscaling. The Wii U has better connection cables than the Wii did. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a Wii U, it definitely doesn't upscale - it will simply use oversized pixels to stretch 480p to 1080p on HDMI. --00:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That´s exactly what upscaling is! Upscaling does NOT mean that software is rendered in a higher native resolution. Some non-tech people seem to have mixed that up. And of course: the Wii U is capable of doing this as well. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-wii-u-backwards-compatibility-analysis --46.223.55.116 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The very source you linked to clearly states, in one of the large quotes, with the PAL console unable to upscale to HD resolutions...so I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at here... Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That´s just true for component, not for HDMI. "with the PAL console unable to upscale to HD resolutions or run in progressive scan over component" "Bizarrely, non-HDMI PAL users are penalised for reasons we can't quite fathom." --46.223.55.116 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

But what part of the article supports your claim that it can upscale wii games to 1080? Can you quote that part here? Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"As expected, there's no magical native HD resolution rendering in HDMI mode, but the upscaling from 480p and conversion of 576i games is handled fairly well."; "Here's how Wii U's hardware scaler (and in the case of MadWorld, the deinterlacer) processes original Wii games." + 1080p sample above: http://images.eurogamer.net/2012/articles//a/1/5/3/3/4/4/1/resi1080p.png; another articel by DF [4] refering to Wii U software: "Wii U scales on the fly to 480p, 720p, 1080i or 1080p. Here's a comparison of three of those modes";"but just like Xbox 360 the console outputs at any resolution you select, upscaling - or indeed downscaling - to your preferred video format." (I suggest to search for quotes via STRG + F) --46.223.55.116 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The Game Industry article doesn't appear to be about playing original Wii games. As far as the DF source - I don't know. This tech stuff is getting beyond me. Does it matter that it never says "upscale to 1080p"? It always says "scaler" or numbers other than 1080p? Also, regardless of what DF says, I still can't get over the number of sources, with info straight from Nintendo themselves, that say it doesn't upscale. A sample:

Makes an allusion to scaling on Wii games

1. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-wii-u-backwards-compatibility-analysis

Says "No upscale for Wii games"

1. Giant Bomb - straight from Mark Franklin, head of Nintendo's public relations.
2. 1UP.com - straight from Nintendo of America's President Reggie Fils-Aime
3. Ars Technica - straight from 4 Nintendo reps

• I could go on and on. It really doesn't seem like Nintendo executives and employees would be wrong on this, not to mention there seems to be endless people around the internet grumbling about this as well. I kind of think your definition of this stuff differs from the mainstream, typically understood definition. As is, I don't know how we'd add what you're proposing without people removing it instantly due to the multitude of sources that say otherwise... Sergecross73 msg me 05:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What I state is that Wii U is capable of upscaling Wii software, but it´s not able to render Wii software in a higher native resolution. Those are two different things and some nintendo staff (or/and the press) indeed seem to have mixed this up (link 3 by the way doesn`t contradict with what I say). But upscaling (and this is not just my definition of the word) is pretty much stretching a video signal to a higher resolution while doing some interpolation to reduce different digital artifacts (see also Video scaler or [5], it´s also what a DVD or Blu-ray player does when they´re dealing with low resolution content - completely post-procession and not equal with native resolution [6]). As more people know about the right definition of the word, there was some confusion within fans as well: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/379590/wii-u-upscales-original-wii-games-to-hd/ --46.223.55.116 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

http://n4g.com/news/1135826/wii-u-upscale-explained-wii-games-do-in-europe-with-hdmi-doesnt-up-render --85.216.97.230 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so the problem seems to be that different people have different definitions regarding "upscaling". I don't believe the argument that "Nintendo/journalists" don't know what they're talking about; they're experts in their field. Additionally, certainly, if it were any sort of true upscaling, there's no reason for Nintendo to deny it. It would be a positive, marketable trait if it were true. Nintendo would only benefit from calling it as being able to upscale original Wii games to HD; it's a desireable trait, and they've only received backlash for now having it. That being said, it does seem to make the image better to some degree, reliable sources have confirmed that as well.

My proposal - find a way to word it that shows both sides - something along the lines of Nintendo states it doesn't upscale original Wii games to HD, but video game journalists have found that it does make the image better. I realize that's probably not the correct wording, and that's why I havne't tried to add it to the article myself yet, but something along those lines of what Nintendo has said versus what has been found. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, coming from a WT:VG thread on this, if you ignore the word "upscaling", the sources appear to agree on what the Wii U output for Wii games on high-def monitors; its the word "upscaling" in a nutshell that is the minefield because of it having different connotations. The best solution is to explain without using "upscaling" what the Wii U output is for the Wii, and if Nintendo doesn't call this "upscaling" the word shouldn't be mentioned, or have Nintendo's position explained out. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• A quick thought, as far as I can understand (disclaimer: from a brief review of the sources provided) the WiiU is capable of upscaling in the sense that the TV will receive a signal with 1080 horizontal lines. As far as the TV is concerned a 1080p signal is being output from the WiiU. The WiiU will be rendering the Wii games in SD and then using the hardware scaler to upscale that picture to the 1080p resolution it outputs. Regarding the fact that Nintendo doesn't refer to it as 'upscaling', I don't see how that's relevant to what it's doing. If I release a new console that has a great new feature, the 'SuperDuperPictureExpander' which takes a rendered 480p image and scales it to a 1080p output signal, it's still upscaling despite me calling it something different. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The word upscaling - allthough most of you might hear it for the first time - is a well known technical term, it´s clearly defined and has already been used for years (http://hometheater.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=hometheater&cdn=gadgets&tm=31&f=11&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=13&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.hometheater.com/content/scaling-size-matters). Journalists or marketing guys of whatever company are for sure no experts in these kind of things. Let´s just take a look at the GPGPU statement from Iwata, already discussed on this page (he claimed the Wii U uses a GPGPU - meaning a special kind of chip - however GPGPU refers to "General Purpose Computation on Graphics Processing Unit"). Just because Nintendo uses another technical term in a wrong way, doesn´t change the definition of "upscaling". There is also no such thing as "different connotations" regarding this term, especially if they mean exactly the opposite (upscaled vs native). At this point the opinion of "expert sites" like digital foundry should be taken first. --149.172.85.46 (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The notion that Nintendo isn't an authority on it's own hardware is rather ludicrous. Like I said, their stance needs to be included to some degree, or otherwise it's just going to lead to arguments or edit warring in the future, because there are so many reliable sources claiming that it's not possible. (Additionally, even the Digital Foundry source...isn't exactly a glowing review of the feature. Whatever it's doing, it doesn't seem to do it that well...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Remember, Nintendo's goal is to sell you their system, and they will use any peacocky buzzwords to do that. If only Nintendo is calling this feature "upscaling" while every reliable tech site is decidely not (specifically denying this) then we really need to go with what the tech sites say. A good question: has any tech site specifically countered N's claim here ? If so we can say "While Nitnenod has called this feature 'upscale', tech sites like Blah and Blah point out that it only does..." which is true to the sources. If no one has called out N on that directly, we have to be a bit more careful on the language. --MASEM (t) 14:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

But, it's the exact opposite as what you described above - Nintendo says it doesn't upscale, it's just various tech websites make allusions to it though. That's a main part of my argument actually, if it were upscaling, it seems like Nintendo would use it as a marketing term. But they're not. They've said point blank, literally "No, it doesn't do that". See the 3 sources I gave above - three different occassions, three different sets of Nintendo executives/reps. Nintendo has no benefit in being untruthful about this - it's really only perceived as a negative that it can't do it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, as Sergecross73 already pointed out Nintendo´s interpretation of the word "upscaling" is not for their own advantage, it´s really just a complete misinformation. But again, Reggie Files or Mark Franklin (head of Nintendo's public relations) are no tech guys. --149.172.85.46 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As i'm understanding it: No Nintendo tech person has used "upscaling"; the public faces (those doing the PR) have said it doesn't do upscaling, and only some tech sites are associating the 1080p + blurred pixels as "upscaling"? And that "upscaling" does have vague meaning across the board (much like the term "indie game"?) Correct? --MASEM (t) 15:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds correct to me. (And I think your example of how the world uses different definitions for the term "indie" for games and music is pretty spot on too. Good example.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Then I would write the line as "The Wii U renders Wii games from their native 480p resolution to produce 1080 lines using pixel blurring but otherwise does not improve the resolution. While sites like X and Y have referred to this as "upscaling", Nintendo's Files has asserted that the Wii U does not upscale Wii games to 1080p." (or something like that) That's an accurate statement that captures the whole scenario without introducing OR and appropriately addresses the vagueness of "upscaling". --MASEM (t) 15:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about what I was going to write if/when I took a stab on it. I agree. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There are not only some tech sites that define upscaling as "1080p + blurred pixels", the whole bunch of home cinema sites are doing this for years([7][8][9]), as well as some video games sites regarding upscaling in the ps3 and 360 ([10],[11],[12],[13]) not to forget this articel on wikipedia itself (Upscaling).--149.172.85.46 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's only "some tech sites" that are specifically saying it in regards to the Wii U/Original Wii game scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's why I used the language, "While sites like X and Y..."; pick a couple strong representatives that clearly call it upscaling. We're not denying what they said, just that what they say and what Nintendo says it is called is different. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be ok, even though Files is not even quoted saying the Wii U won´t upscale (instead he used the term "upres", which would be absolutely right). The same for Mark Franklin, IMO it´s not clear whether he actually used the word "upscaling" or not. But as I said I´m fine with the solution you found ... --149.172.85.46 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Alleged downloadable GameCube games

The July 2011 quote from a director of marketting about GameCube games being downloadable on "WiiWare" is trumped by NOA President Reggie Fils-Aime straight up saying in September 2012 that they have nothing tp announce regarding that. http://kotaku.com/5944545/10-gamecube-games-that-should-be-downloadable-on-wii-u As such, the article should not be stating that this will happen. ArtistScientist (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source, but again, this is not a debunking or a denial. Reggie is saying just that: "nothing to announce". It's not saying "we're definitely not doing it", nor is it saying "we're definitely doing it". To that end, I have added a statement indicating Nintendo hasn't said anything definitive yet, and added the source provided. --McDoobAU93 17:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, it was exactly what I was going to do had you not beat me to it! Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be doing that a lot lately, Serge! Great minds and all that ... --McDoobAU93 20:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking I could add to the article,no?74.178.177.48 (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Release dates / Introductory Prices

I was going to remove the russian release date and the 'Introductory Prices' section from the info box, but thought I'd run it past any regular editors first. Other console pages just have the JP/EU/US release dates (if at all), and none have initial prices listed. Should these therefore be removed? :) Darrek_Attilla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.228.99 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Launch games

Someone with time and inclination should go over the list of launch games. I see edits like this and wonder if people aren't getting confused and marking games as "yes" when they are finally released weeks after launch. Anomie⚔ 04:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I honestly think it should be removed outright, partially because of that, and partially because it seems more appropriate for the list of Wii U games article. (Its going to be less and less relevant as time passes. Sergecross73 msg me 04:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll also mention that the "Nintendo eShop" column on the right varies between regions so I think there should be a note about that. DarkToonLink (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and took your suggestion, Sergecross73, after an IP yet again screwed around with the list. I left in just the basic statement of how many launch games there were, which could use sourcing if anyone is up to it. Anomie⚔ 02:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If people want to track that sort of thing, they can mark games as "Launch Games" at the List of Wii U games article or something. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reception

Can we get someone to clean up the reception part of this article? I mean the Wii U has gotten mostly positive reviews and the sections just lists one choppy negative review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.244.120 (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Eighth Generation

"It is the first entry in the eighth generation of video game home consoles, however this is a point of contention." Just becasue the EA guy was pissed Nintendo didn't use Origin doesn't mean it's not an 8th Gen console... It's an 8th gen console because it's part of the 8th Generation of consoles... A recent edit suggested a discussion on this.DarkToonLink (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the quote only referred to the system's perceived graphical capabilities, not its literal release as a '00s video game console. One person also doesn't make it "a point of contention". Maybe "However, EA's Bob Bobson disputes that its capabilities are characteristic of a new generation". ArtistScientist (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's probably worth mentioning, but I don't think a sentence like that should go in the first paragraph. Whilst some may say its graphics aren't advanced enough to be called 'next-gen,' it is part of the 8th Generation.

I'll go ahead and remove the point of contention thing but mention it somewhere else. Actually I'll wait for more input. And if others disagree, well, there can be further discussion here. DarkToonLink (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I forgot it was the opening paragraph, I don't think it should be mentioned there either. ArtistScientist (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the power issue does not make this a seventh generation console any more than the Wii was a sixth generation console despite being less powerful than either the PS3 or the XBOX 360.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

While I believe it to be "8th gen" too, it's hard to argue that some people hold that fact in contention. I think it's okay to mention, although I also agree it doesn't really belong in the intro/lead either... Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it looks like someone made the edit. It now seems a bit cleaner but I'm not sure if it's mentioned anywhere else, because as Serge said, some people do hold it in contention, and as a neutral site, it does need to be mentioned. But yes, the first paragraph of Earth doesn't mention the Flat Earth Society...Thanks, DarkToonLink (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sales comparisons

The reason I included the sales of the PS3 and 360 in the paragraph on the Wii U's sales was because the section only provides a comparison with the phenomenal sales of the Wii, which, combined with the critics' forecasting Nintendo's supposed doom because of lower than expected sales, gives the reader the impression the system is selling very poorly, which isn't an informed view. Other console sales are needed to prevent the reader from getting a very skewed impression. The 360 and PS3 are from last generation, but their successors haven't been released yet so that's the only comparison that can be provided for now. ArtistScientist (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nintendo's doom is not going to happen from one console that hasn't sold well or they would be out of business. They seem to make their money in the children's toy market with their hand held gadgets and not on consoles. I am not sure why that PS3/360 comparison was removed since many sites are using that except perhaps that they are older generation consoles? Perhaps if you can find sales reports on past Nintendo consoles (N64, GC, Wii) or use Nintendo hand held sales (GBA, NDS, 3DS) it would shed a better perspective of how Nintendo is and their market? Tyros1972 (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree there should be a comparison to put the sales figures into context, I don't see a problem using the 360 and PS3 for that. I've rephrased that sentence a bit though, so let me know if you prefer it the way it was (or just revert it anyway!). Also, I think the sentence about Wii U sales after 41 days is made redundant by the next paragraph - thoughts? Darrek Attilla (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)