Kotaku: The Wii U Won't Be Getting Unreal Engine 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
EmCeeGramr said:
"wow, nintendo, you're making hd f-zero that's modern in every way, a dark souls style 1080p 60fps zelda, console pokemon, five new ips, and a gritty but satirical mach rider reboot from platinum, wow this is just great"
-gaffer having a wonderful dream in 2016 before waking up and seeing a bait-and-switch wario64 thread about a new fire emblem game finally coming only it looks like a flash game and it's a f2p phone title and no plans for a western release
Click to expand...

You're exaggerating a bit too much but you're correct. We would be getting a significant less amount of games from Nintendo if they went 3rd party.
 
AZ Greg said:
So why didn't 3rd parties support it like the PS2/Xbox? It wasn't a power issue. It wasn't hardware sales since GC sold around the same as Xbox. So it either falls on Nintendo's relationship building skills with them or on GC owners/Nintendo fans who historically don't support third-party efforts as well as owners of the competing consoles. Regardless, both of those shouldn't be a cause for completely switching your strategy. Now that the Wii fad is over, Nintendo is seeing this. Only problem now, however, is that their temporary success with the Wii has hurt their image with core gamers and 3rd parties even more than the GC did. And the casuals who kept them afloat with the Wii have all moved to greener pastures.
Click to expand...

I think the GC's smaller disc capacity probably had a lot to do with it.
 
AZ Greg said:
So why didn't 3rd parties support it like the PS2/Xbox? It wasn't a power issue. It wasn't hardware sales since GC sold around the same as Xbox. So it either falls on Nintendo's relationship building skills with them or on GC owners/Nintendo fans who historically don't support third-party efforts as well as owners of the competing consoles. Regardless, both of those shouldn't be a cause for completely switching your strategy. Now that the Wii fad is over, Nintendo is seeing this. Only problem now, however, is that their temporary success with the Wii has hurt their image with core gamers and 3rd parties even more than the GC did. And the casuals who kept them afloat with the Wii have all moved to greener pastures.
Click to expand...

The GC's third party support really wasn't any worse than the original Xbox's. PS2 dominated that generation and third parties largely ignored both the GC and original Xbox.
 
Really though, does Nintendo even give a fuck about the kinds of games that are skipping the Wii U right now?

I started another thread about this, but the general perception seems to be that Nintendo doesn't really care about the kinds of games most western third parties are making. It's only a problem when they can't shore up enough of their own userbase and developer support from outside that sphere.
 
AZ Greg said:
Then explain why the Xbox had much better 3rd party support than the GC despite facing the same PS2 juggernaut and selling about the same as the GC?
Click to expand...
Same principle. Gamers still were distrusting Nintendo after the N64 and had already made up their minds to not get a GameCube. Xbox was a fresh face and had no previous sentiment either way. Third-parties go where the gamers go.

Ultimately, the entire hardcore side of the console war is based around sentiment towards each of the big three. Hardcore gamers buy the systems from the brand they like and the devs follow the hardcores. PR and a company's public image in gamer culture play a lot larger part in each company's success than you think. Only now even the casuals are starting to listen to you people and that prospect terrifies me, because everyone following the whims of hardcore gamers? Nothing would kill the entire industry faster.
 
Nintendo will probably get by like the always have. Their first party titles will sell really well, and there will be some third parties that really really take a liking to the wii u. Its not going to be like the wii in terms on sales though
 
Oblivion said:
I think the GC's smaller disc capacity probably had a lot to do with it.
Click to expand...

There were a few games that had FMV sequences that needed to be cut to fit it all on the smaller disc's, but for the most part that was a cop out. 90+% of games from that era had no problem fitting on the discs.
 
People keep blaming Gamecube's success on its hardware but if the Gamecube wasn't powerful, it may not have lived for more than a year.

Power was still important back then and it still is now.

Same goes for N64. If it couldn't do 3D graphics in the 90's, it would have been DOA.
 
MisterHero said:
who needs nintendo when theres playstation all-stars battle royale

people only buy nintendo for smash anyways


They did it twice with N64. It didn't work.
Click to expand...

They also made frustratingly stupid decisions for both consoles that made them unappealing for third parties: sticking with expensive and limited cartridges for the N64, and opting to go with a gimpy controller and a limited optical medium for the Gamecube, and both featuring tricky hardware to code for at their core.

The "power strategy didn't work out for them" argument only works if we ignore the major issues that those systems also had, and since we can't, it's an entirely worthless argument. Nintendo took their ball and went home on the Wii, and now they're heading back outside only to find that no one wants to play ball with them at all.
 
Guys, guys, remember this?

ilUqpVrIOLXlD.gif


1EqgzW5.gif
 
VinLAURiA said:
Arg! This is what I don't get, and people keep saying it over and over! "Get their act together?" If they were to make another 720, how would that have helped? How would that - at all - have improved their situation? Another system with a standard controller that's comparable in power to the other two: they-- they tried that! With the GameCube! It. Didn't. WORK. Why would it work two generations later?!
Click to expand...

First, the Gamecube did get better third party support than Nintendo had received in a long time, but they still hamstrung themselves with a storage medium that held 1/3 as much as the other guys were using. The controller issues and lack of online support might have been forgivable if Nintendo had caught up to the competition afterwards. They didn't.

Second, I'm not saying that Nintendo needs to copy the competition in every conceivable way. I like that Nintendo systems have aspects that make them unique and are supported by the games they release, and there have been shades of that philosophy in every console they've released. With the Wii, the combination of motion controls and first party software that made effective use of them was enough to sell the system and make the weaker hardware largely a non-issue. The problem is that lightning didn't strike twice with the Wii U, and they're left with about as much third party support as they had with the Wii (Read: Very little) and a system that's not very developer friendly and is about to become a repeat of the last generation's hardware situation. That's not a good place to be.

Being able to pull ahead of the competition like they did with the Wii is not something Nintendo should have counted on being able to do. They can still differentiate themselves, but they also need to be able to compete on the same terms as the other guys. Peronally, my ideal Wii U would have been like this:
  • Similar in architecture to the PS4 and Durango. 4+ core low voltage x86 CPU, 4+ GB of unified memory, high bandwidth connections between everything.
  • More conservatively spec'd than those systems, but by a small enough factor to ensure that next-gen middleware could still run.
  • Employed a combination of an improved Wii Remote and second-screen experiences via 3DS and an app for other mobile devices.
  • Matched Microsoft and Sony tit for tat on OS functionality, then added Miiverse elements on top of that.

VinLAURiA said:
Same principle. Gamers still were distrusting Nintendo after the N64 and had already made up their minds to not get a GameCube. Xbox was a fresh face and had no previous sentiment either way. Third-parties go where the gamers go.

Ultimately, the entire hardcore side of the console war is based around sentiment towards each of the big three. Hardcore gamers buy the systems from the brand they like and the devs follow the hardcores. PR and a company's public image in gamer culture play a lot larger part in each company's success than you think. Only now even the casuals are starting to listen to you people and that prospect terrifies me, because everyone following the whims of hardcore gamers? Nothing would kill the entire industry faster.
Click to expand...

You know what else the Xbox had going for it? A design that was similar to contemporary PCs, allowing for easy ports from those platforms.
 
VinLAURiA said:
And the product Wii audiences would've been interested in is another PS4? I honestly don't understand this. You realize who the majority of people who bought the Wii were, right? They don't share our tastes. "More power" doesn't appeal to casuals. Seeing the same controller we've had since the PS1 days doesn't appeal to casuals. Should the system have come out when more Nintendo games were ready to capture the ever-present Nintendo first-party fans? Yes. But seriously, do you even know what they could've done to capture the casual audience? 'Cause I'll tell you right now - nothing they could've done would ever get the attention of hardcores with no interest in Nintendo. They already have their 360/PS3 and they're likely already gonna get their 720/PS4.
Click to expand...

So basically Nintendo has lost that Wii audience and they're right back where they were with the GC.
 
Ridley327 said:
opting to go with a gimpy controller and a limited optical medium for the Gamecube, and both featuring tricky hardware to code for at their core.
Click to expand...
Uh, in the very post you quoted was the statement that the "limited optical medium" argument was a load of crap (which it is, since most Gen6 games wouldn't even take up a GameCube disc.) Plus I don't really see how the GameCube controller is gimpy, but then again most gamers say the bulky-as-@#$! 360 controller is somehow comfortable so maybe that's just hand size differences.

I will admit I'm genuinely curious into how the GameCube architecture was difficult to develop for, though.
 
AZ Greg said:
My point exactly. They were making an effort. Unlike Nintendo who just threw their hands up and claimed gamers didn't want a 3rd box that just did the same thing.
Click to expand...

Eh, moneyhats only go so far. After a while, third parties willingly started putting their support behind the other consoles.
 
Orayn said:
First, the Gamecube did get better third party support than Nintendo had received in a long time, but they still hamstrung themselves with a storage medium that held 1/3 as much as the other guys were using. The controller issues and lack of online support might have been forgivable if Nintendo had caught up to the competition afterwards. They didn't.

Second, I'm not saying that Nintendo needs to copy the competition in every conceivable way. I like that Nintendo systems have aspects that make them unique and are supported by the games they release, and there have been shades of that philosophy in every console they've released. With the Wii, the combination of motion controls and first party software that made effective use of them was enough to sell the system and make the weaker hardware largely a non-issue. The problem is that lightning didn't strike twice with the Wii U, and they're left with about as much third party support as they had with the Wii (Read: Very little) and a system that's not very developer friendly and is about to become a repeat of the last generation's hardware situation. That's not a good place to be.

Being able to pull ahead of the competition like they did with the Wii is not something Nintendo should have counted on being able to do. They can still differentiate themselves, but they also need to be able to compete on the same terms as the other guys. Peronally, my ideal Wii U would have been like this:
  • Similar in architecture to the PS4 and Durango.
  • More conservatively spec'd than those systems, but by a small enough factor to ensure that next-gen middleware could still run.
  • Employed a combination of an improved Wii Remote and second-screen experiences via 3DS and an app for other mobile devices.
  • Matched Microsoft and Sony tit for tat on OS functionality, then added Miiverse elements on top of that.



You know what else the Xbox had going for it? A design that was similar to contemporary PCs, allowing for easy ports from those platforms.
Click to expand...

But do they even want to? From comments we heard a long time ago it seems Nintendo did not at all enjoy attempting to keep in-step with the other guys during the Gamecube era.

Nintendo likes being a trend-setter, not a follower.
 
VinLAURiA said:
Uh, in the very post you quoted was the statement that the "limited optical medium" argument was a load of crap (which it is, since most Gen6 games wouldn't even take up a GameCube disc.) Plus I don't really see how the GameCube controller is gimpy, but then again most gamers say the bulky-as-@#$! 360 controller is somehow comfortable so maybe that's just hand size differences.

I will admit I'm genuinely curious into how the GameCube architecture was difficult to develop for, though.
Click to expand...

The Gamecube controller had less buttons, which impacted ports a great deal (most notoriously with the SSX games, which dropped an entire set of tricks to compensate), an unusual button layout that didn't play well with a lot of multiplatform titles, and the right analog stick couldn't have been any crappier if it tried.

I'm also not sure about why you think there was this huge influx of games that didn't make the most of the space on a DVD, as Gamecube multiplatform ports often found themselves with heavily compressed FMV and audio to get them to fit onto a single disc.
 
Orayn said:
First, the Gamecube did get better third party support than Nintendo had received in a long time, but they still hamstrung themselves with a storage medium that held 1/3 as much as the other guys were using. The controller issues and lack of online support might have been forgivable if Nintendo had caught up to the competition afterwards. They didn't.

Second, I'm not saying that Nintendo needs to copy the competition in every conceivable way. I like that Nintendo systems have aspects that make them unique and are supported by the games they release, and there have been shades of that philosophy in every console they've released. With the Wii, the combination of motion controls and first party software that made effective use of them was enough to sell the system and make the weaker hardware largely a non-issue. The problem is that lightning didn't strike twice with the Wii U, and they're left with about as much third party support as they had with the Wii (Read: Very little) and a system that's not very developer friendly and is about to become a repeat of the last generation's hardware situation. That's not a good place to be.

Being able to pull ahead of the competition like they did with the Wii is not something Nintendo should have counted on being able to do. They can still differentiate themselves, but they also need to be able to compete on the same terms as the other guys. Peronally, my ideal Wii U would have been like this:
  • Similar in architecture to the PS4 and Durango. 4+ core low voltage x86 CPU, 4+ GB of unified memory, high bandwidth connections between everything.
  • More conservatively spec'd than those systems, but by a small enough factor to ensure that next-gen middleware could still run.
  • Employed a combination of an improved Wii Remote and second-screen experiences via 3DS and an app for other mobile devices.
  • Matched Microsoft and Sony tit for tat on OS functionality, then added Miiverse elements on top of that.



You know what else the Xbox had going for it? A design that was similar to contemporary PCs, allowing for easy ports from those platforms.
Click to expand...
Fair point about the Xbox. And while it's too late for the specs of Wii U, isn't it possible to still get to your third and fourth points through OS updates and clever game design? I mean, with the Wii U, MotionPlus is standard. We can assume everyone has one, so it's not like the Wii where a MotionPlus product is a niche thing.

Again, though: I still don't see how the smaller discs hurt Nintendo considering that most developers didn't even exceed that space in the first place even on other systems.
 
RedSwirl said:
But do they even want to? From comments we heard a long time ago it seems Nintendo did not at all enjoy attempting to keep in-step with the other guys during the Gamecube era.

Nintendo likes being a trend-setter, not a follower.
Click to expand...

It's nice to want things, but you have to be realistic about such ambitions. You cannot count on consistently having a differentiating factor so strong that it makes everything else irrelevant.
 
It's dead i say, dead...
Now on a more serious note, it's sad to say this is the first N home console i didn't buy and that's after the wii....
 
Ridley327 said:
They also made frustratingly stupid decisions for both consoles that made them unappealing for third parties: sticking with expensive and limited cartridges for the N64, and opting to go with a gimpy controller and a limited optical medium for the Gamecube, and both featuring tricky hardware to code for at their core.

The "power strategy didn't work out for them" argument only works if we ignore the major issues that those systems also had, and since we can't, it's an entirely worthless argument. Nintendo took their ball and went home on the Wii, and now they're heading back outside only to find that no one wants to play ball with them at all.
Click to expand...
But it didn't impact the quality of their own games, did it? Nintendo's own games arguably improved by aborting the N64DD, and are also arguably held in higher regards than classic PSX games in retrospect.

Yeah, they made shitty decisions, but conversely, hours of non-gameplay FMVs and soundtracks that span multiple CDs weren't the greatest things for 3rd-parties to focus on.

Neither N64, PSX, or Saturn was capable of 100% accurate arcade ports [a powerful supply of games of the time] so they all failed to deliver in some capacity. Thankfully 1st-party efforts were there to show what the hardware could do.
 
VinLAURiA said:
Uh, in the very post you quoted was the statement that the "limited optical medium" argument was a load of crap (which it is, since most Gen6 games wouldn't even take up a GameCube disc.) Plus I don't really see how the GameCube controller is gimpy, but then again most gamers say the bulky-as-@#$! 360 controller is somehow comfortable so maybe that's just hand size differences.

I will admit I'm genuinely curious into how the GameCube architecture was difficult to develop for, though.
Click to expand...

It didn't have a proper right stick, granted the console FPS generation wasn't in full swing.
 
RedSwirl said:
But do they even want to? From comments we heard a long time ago it seems Nintendo did not at all enjoy attempting to keep in-step with the other guys during the Gamecube era.

Nintendo likes being a trend-setter, not a follower.
Click to expand...

While that sounds nice, it could also be that they simply don't like having to compete. Let's say the Gamecube really isn't the route they wanted to go. That leaves the NES, SNES, and N64 which were all basically nothing more than graphical upgrades. As soon as Sony comes onto the scene and beats them then all of a sudden they're ready to go a different route as opposed to trying to compete and take back what they had. Coincidence?
 
Still laughing......

Following an Unreal Engine presentation at 2013's Game Developer Conference, Rein clarifies his response to IGN, still laughing, "I just laugh at the question...Unreal Engine 4, we're not PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, or Wii U. It's next-gen technology. That's what we're aiming for."

So while UE4 proper won't make its way onto Wii U, Rein explains that developers are capable of porting software powered by the engine. "The truth is, if a developer wanted to take an Unreal Engine game and put it on Wii U, they could," Rein continues. "Unreal Engine 3 is kicking ass on Wii U. The best games on Wii U are made on our technology. What more do you want from us?"

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/03/29/unreal-engine-4-frostbite-3-will-not-support-wii-u
 
AZ Greg said:
Then explain why the Xbox had much better 3rd party support than the GC despite facing the same PS2 juggernaut and selling about the same as the GC?
Click to expand...

It didn't. That's revisionist history.

Or, more correctly, it didn't until sales determined that to be the case. At first, the Gamecube got every PS2 game the Xbox got. Later on, as sales and developer preference dictated, it tapered off. The lack of a couple of buttons on the controller, Nintendo's insistence on GBA connectivity instead of online, and the "kiddie" image (which also contributed to poorer sales) all affected this.

Or, to put it in the simplest terms: software sales dictate support over the long term, not hardware sales.
 
They should start announcing when things actually come to the system. Expect absolutely nothing but 1st party Nintendo stuff and be pleasantly surprised when a rare gem pops up not Nintendo related: Lego Undercover for example.

Wii U is dead now, wait till next gen consoles start releasing. I am not a Nintendo hater, I bought a XL this week. They make great handhelds and great 2nd home consoles.
 
I can't believe people think a more powerful Wii U would get any more support.

People seemed convinced Wii U would get all the big PS3/360 games from this year...hell even Reggie thought it....and look how that turned out. Late ports and little else.

Power doesn't mean shit when it comes to support for Nintendo platforms.

Nintendo will only get major 3rd party support if they pay for porting..lend them their franchise characters for free...or if Sony or Microsoft leave the market (and provided Apple or some other giant corporation doesn't enter it).
 
ProfessorMoran said:
It didn't have a proper right stick, granted the console FPS generation wasn't in full swing.
Click to expand...

Not just that, it lacked an additional bumper, and the click on the trigger is a completely separate input.

Ergonomically and for first party games it's probably my dream controller. But for any third party game that basically wasn't one of the Sonic games or Capcom Five, it was pretty gimped. The triggers also vastly reduce any chance of seeing GC games on Wii U's virtual console unless they come out with a dedicated controller for it.
 
RedSwirl said:
But do they even want to? From comments we heard a long time ago it seems Nintendo did not at all enjoy attempting to keep in-step with the other guys during the Gamecube era.

Nintendo likes being a trend-setter, not a follower.
Click to expand...

Nintendo a trend-setter? They haven't set an important gaming trend since the analog stick.
 
AZ Greg said:
While that sounds nice, it could also be that they simply don't like having to compete. Let's say the Gamecube really isn't the route they wanted to go. That leaves the NES, SNES, and N64 which were all basically nothing more than graphical upgrades. As soon as Sony comes onto the scene and beats them then all of a sudden they're ready to go a different route as opposed to trying to compete and take back what they had. Coincidence?
Click to expand...
Isn't that a good thing, though? I mean, that's still competition and competition is a good thing. Sony forced Nintendo out of their comfort zone so Nintendo did something different to keep up, and we got motion controls and touch screen gaming out of it.
 
Chie Satonaka said:
It's interesting that people aren't discussing this.

People want this medium to be taken seriously, but this is what comes from industry professionals, not to mention (most) Games Journalism.
Click to expand...

because gamers and designers want to have it both ways, they want to be seen as an artistic and worthwhile service, worthy of being lumped in with movies and novels, but then still want to be juvenile and silly and thoroughly unprofessional, all while the fans clap and hoot an holler.

Then we'll have a thread asking "why come no one takes us seriously! We're art too!" *feet stomping*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Unreal Engine 5.7 is out
News  2
56
1K
VAVA Mk2 replied
Unreal Engine is slowly causing the decay of the industry, what can be done?
Opinion  2 3 4 5 6
258
4K
Guilty_AI replied
The Witcher 4 Unreal Engine 5 Tech Demo: Digital Foundry Reaction!
42
2K
IbizaPocholo replied
Job Listing Suggests Platinum Next Action Game Based On Unreal Engine 5
Game Dev Platform 
7
50
Zathalus replied
Tim Sweeney Blames Unreal Engine 5 Issues on Game Developers
2 3
141
2K
Rivdoric replied
Top Bottom