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

Status
Not open for further replies.
ClovingWestbrook said:
Well if you are correct it's speaks volumes of Nintendo's corporate incompetence. However, Iwata and Reggie have said otherwise.
Click to expand...
Nintendo does a lot of strange shit, but with our limited knowledge, it's hard to call that particular decision incompetent. And what did Reggie and Iwata say? That they would like to see those games on their platform, sure. That they'd talk to publishers and offer incentives like co-marketing or publishing deals, yes. Not that they'd moneyhat releases.


StuBurns said:
There are two flaws to this logic, it assumes what you're suggesting is financially, and technologically viable.

With GTA5, I have no doubt it's possible to port it, but how much would Nintendo have to pay for the game? That's not how a platform holder should operate. Rockstar say, "give us thirty million dollars, and we'll give you a port", and Nintendo say yes?

First parties can't be paying for third party, multiplatform games, it sets a terrible precedent.

Also, going beyond PS360 games, technologically it becomes an issue, as well as financially.

It's not a case of what Nintendo wants, they can't just buy everyone.
Click to expand...
Yes, it sets a terrible precedent. One that especially Microsoft has already set. That's the problem.
 
wsippel said:
I wasn't joking, but I worded my thoughts pretty badly. The point is that Nintendo obviously doesn't do much to secure those high profile AAA games. It's nice if they're coming and Nintendo will give them some exposure, but they don't seem to care all that much if they skip Wii U. This very topic is a prime example: If they actively wanted UE4 on Wii U, they'd ask Epic to port the engine, or port the engine at NST. Or enter a strategic partnership similar to the Unity or Havok deals. It's not that they couldn't afford/ do it, which means they simply don't consider it worthwhile or important enough.
Click to expand...

That might be right right now, I doubt it but is possible, but time ago it wasn't the case. Iwata and Reggie said several times that they want those titles. Also they spent a great part of last year E3 show showing those late AAA ports.

If Nintendo didn't approached Epic, is because they know perfectly that the console they designed have to much shortcomings compared to PS4/Durango that an UE4 version would be impossible unless Epic basically created a version only for Wii U. And that's not gonna happen and I doubt any other team can do that witout major effort and constant communications with Epic and lots of documentation.

IMO what Nintendo expected is that those ports would succesful enough to create a significant userbase that third parties couldn't avoid. So they would do specific ports por it even if they were expensive. So even if they didn't have UE4, third parties would be forced to do it, because they would get a good benefit on it.

Of course they failed and now they're probably changing plans.
 
wsippel said:
Nintendo does a lot of strange shit, but with our limited knowledge, it's hard to call that particular decision incompetent. And what did Reggie and Iwata say? That they would like to see those games on their platform, sure. That they'd talk to publishers and offer incentives like co-marketing or publishing deals, yes. Not that they'd moneyhat releases.
Click to expand...

Don't you see the problem is that Nintendo put the Wii U in a position where they would have to money hat these games?
 
All I have to say is:

Nintendo decided to go a different route.
This decision does not bode well with the rest of the industry except for indies.
Everyone not Nintendo and Indies want the Wii U to fail.
Wii U is first a Nintendo game machine, then an indie machine. This has been known since forever.
Nintendo does not play the AAA game strategy. In a market crash I think the company that could stand a chance is Nintendo.
Third party companies should not be blamed, they have a strategy in place and it does not include the Wii U. We can say the same about Nintendo. The Wii had some nice 3rd party titles, this time it will be tougher for the Wii U, but if the sales come I think there is a chance.

Mark Rein is an asshole!! Man I can understand these companies decisions, is logical and makes business sense, but you dont have to be an asshole!!
 
The notion that Nintendo doesn't care enough about AAA Western titles to secure WiiU ports is ridiculous. That was Nintendo's whole entire goal with the WiiU.

If anything, it's the other way around: it's the West that doesn't care...
 
shinobi602 said:
jDkt43c8PybCM.jpg
Click to expand...

Brilliant!
 
jWILL253 said:
The notion that Nintendo doesn't care enough about AAA Western titles to secure WiiU ports is ridiculous. That was Nintendo's whole entire goal with the WiiU.

If anything, it's the other way around: it's the West that doesn't care...
Click to expand...

That was the point of the Wii U?

Can you prove that?
 
megabytecr said:
All I have to say is:

Nintendo decided to go a different route.
This decision does not bode well with the rest of the industry except for indies.
Everyone not Nintendo and Indies want the Wii U to fail.
Wii U is first a Nintendo game machine, then an indie machine. This has been known since forever.
Nintendo does not play the AAA game strategy. In a market crash I think the company that could stand a chance is Nintendo.
Third party companies should not be blamed, they have a strategy in place and it does not include the Wii U. We can say the same about Nintendo. The Wii had some nice 3rd party titles, this time it will be tougher for the Wii U, but if the sales come I think there is a chance.

Mark Rein is an asshole!! Man I can understand these companies decisions, is logical and makes business sense, but you dont have to be an asshole!!
Click to expand...

There isnt any grand conspiracy that pubs want Nintendo to fail. They simply dont see a benefit putting their games on their hardware.
 
ClovingWestbrook said:
Don't you see the problem is that Nintendo put the Wii U in a position where they would have to money hat these games?
Click to expand...
It's actually the other way around: They put it in that position by not moneyhatting those games. Nintendo didn't actively piss off publishers, they simply didn't invest enough to get many of them on board.
 
ClovingWestbrook said:
Well that is opinion as 'more interesting' is relative. Does it look great imo? Hell yes.
Click to expand...

Of couse it's subjective, just as calling it 'great looking' is subjective.

It's just a bit worrisome when people get more excited by higher spec UE4 games that seem to be more of the same. And that's not to say we won't get something creative, but when the current crop of next gen demos don't really do much beyond the existing gen .. we've kinda hit a wall here.
 
jWILL253 said:
The notion that Nintendo doesn't care enough about AAA Western titles to secure WiiU ports is ridiculous. That was Nintendo's whole entire goal with the WiiU.

If anything, it's the other way around: it's the West that doesn't care...
Click to expand...

LOL what, no it wasn't. It was exactly the same goal as what they wanted/achieved with the Wii. Except they needed a new gimmick.

Nothing about the WiiU lends itself to core games.
 
wsippel said:
It's actually the other way around: They put it in that position by not moneyhatting those games. Nintendo didn't actively piss off publishers, they simply didn't invest enough to get many of them on board.
Click to expand...

They didnt invest in their own hardware in a way that will help it succeed. They figured they would be able to attract third parties as is. Have you not read the countless interviews since its reveal in 2011?
 
Meelow said:
Expect we are not spinning it, Wii U is next gen if you like it or not.

If the Wii 3 was more powerful than the PS5, the PS5 would still be a 9th gen system.

The N64 was a lot more powerful than the PS1/Saturn, that doesn't mean the PS1/Saturn were 4.5 gen while N64 was true 5th gen.

And wouldn't technology also mean controller? From what I can see the Gamepad is more "next gen" than the DS4.
Click to expand...
Semantics. Fuck senantics.

The 'gen' debate is pointless.
 
TheSeks said:
And if there was no demand for you porting that middleware?

Devs aren't asking for UE4 support in the system because the system is DYING currently. Why would Epic throw money behind a port for it if it isn't going to be used?
Click to expand...

Because it's incredibly short-sighted. And that decision wasn't made a month ago out of the blue. The reason the system isn't moving units right now is painfully obvious just like it is painfully obvious that this will change once the software drought is over and things get back to normal.
 
Let them grasp at straws claiming it's next-gen due to releasing 7 year old tech, 7 years late. It's next-gen in none of the ways that actually matter
 
mentalfloss said:
Of couse it's subjective, just as calling it 'great looking' is subjective.

It's just a bit worrisome when people get more excited by higher spec UE4 games that seem to be more of the same. And that's not to say we won't get something creative, but when the current crop of next gen demos don't really do much beyond the existing gen .. we've kinda hit a wall here.
Click to expand...
And how is that Zelda demo not "more of the same?" Just because it's the first time we've seen Link in HD? I agree that it looks great, but praising the visuals of that particular demo and downplaying the graphical fidelity of other demos and games seems a bit silly.

They all look great.
 
mentalfloss said:
Of couse it's subjective, just as calling it 'great looking' is subjective.

It's just a bit worrisome when people get more excited by higher spec UE4 games that seem to be more of the same. And that's not to say we won't get something creative, but when the current crop of next gen demos don't really do much beyond the existing gen .. we've kinda hit a wall here.
Click to expand...

How is that Zelda demo any more creative than what we've seen from Deep Down or Agni's Philosophy?
 
Dictator93 said:
That was the point of the Wii U?

Can you prove that?
Click to expand...

If you watched their e3 conferences prior to launch, you could see that it was clearly a major focus of the U. They devoted a ton of time to the ports they did get.

That said, I don't blame Western developers. I blame Nintendo for not doing anything themselves to win the type of players those third party studios target. It's nintendos job to win those players back if they want third parties back. Expecting third parties to do the heavy lifting was hilariously short sighted. There is nothing wrong with continuing to make great Mario games that sell very well, but don't pretend you can just do that and expect to attract other players that have lived on ps360 for 7 years. Take a chance and develop a mature Western style game.
 
Dynopia said:
Nothing about the WiiU lends itself to core games.
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree.

I've been having a blast with ZombiU and Runner 2 and both make good use of the gamepad. Also, Miiverse has eaten up a lot of my time while playing these games. And looking up walkthroughs (both text and video) on the fly is pretty neat as well.
 
Dictator93 said:
That was the point of the Wii U?

Can you prove that?
Click to expand...

In the pre-release hype for the WiiU, there was a bunch of news about how they gained support from EA, Activision & Ubisoft. In other words, they courted the three biggest publishers in the West for support, and it made headlines. We now know how EA turned out, and time will tell if the other two jump ship as well...
 
StuBurns said:
Those things are not 'gained'. Nintendo published stuff isn't impacted either way, the Wii U was always going to get that.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can ignore Nintendo exclusives when they are often the games that convey what a system is about. Take Zelda, for example. Your standard Zelda game may not represent a 'gain' since, as you say, it would be expected. However, a Zelda game that takes advantage of game pad functionality to breathe life into the series, and combines it with other features exclusive to WiiU like miiverse, most definitely represents a creative gain. A different angle and new ideas is what worked for them back in 2006 with the Wii and Wii sports, and it is what Nintendo is relying on now. Unfortunately, this time it is taking a while to get the WiiU's point across, partly due to their own incompetence when it comes to marketing, and partly due to a shift in paradigms about game development.

This shift is what interests me most. I don't want to dwell much on Nintendo and the WiiU since my intention was to debate a little about the state of the industry right now. Can developers still come up with amazing fun and new ideas on PS4? Sure! But to me enhanced visual fidelity, that which is consistantly advertised by developers, does not make for new ideas. Whenever I see a demo like Samaritan, I gasp at its beauty like any other geek, but in time I find myself asking "so... What else you got?" New ideas require us to step out of our comfort zones. You've got your power now with the PS4, but how will you use it? You said you were inhibited by technology, but now you have a choice: will you play it safe or take a risk? But why go out of your way when current AAA strategies are so effective at selling games, right? It's what the market wants.

Who is right? Who is wrong? What should be prioritized in game development? Who is alienating who? I don't know, but I know what I prioritize as a gamer. Do I care that UE4 isn't coming to WiiU? Perhaps a little. More games are always welcome, but a new engine doesn't make a good game. Do I care that people care so much that UE4 isn't coming to WiiU? Personally, yes. I find it is backwards thinking. I'm just one guy, however.

What I do know is that things have changed dramatically this generation, and I'm not sure I appreciate this new perspective on what gaming is about.
 
Heavy said:
It's crazy how the zelda gifs look like crap now that we've seen next-gen games and tech demos. I legit thought the zelda demo looked awesome back then but it now looks almost a gen below some of the stuff we're seeing (Knack, Deep Down, Infamous 2, Agni's, the tech demos from yesterday)
Click to expand...

i hope you're joking lol.
 
wsippel said:
It's actually the other way around: They put it in that position by not moneyhatting those games. Nintendo didn't actively piss off publishers, they simply didn't invest enough to get many of them on board.
Click to expand...

Sony didn't have to moneyhat third parties, and neither did MS.
 
DeviousAngel said:
I don't see how you can ignore Nintendo exclusives when they are often the games that convey what a system is about. Take Zelda, for example. Your standard Zelda game may not represent a 'gain' since, as you say, it would be expected. However, a Zelda game that takes advantage of game pad functionality to breathe life into the series, and combines it with other features exclusive to WiiU like miiverse, most definitely represents a creative gain.
Click to expand...
Those things are just subjective though. The fact some people think SS is a better Zelda than TP is meaningless to the platform's value to the larger public. The loss of every major third party game released for the next five years is immeasurably worse than the next Zelda having a nice menu interface to the vast majority of people.
 
DeviousAngel said:
This shift is what interests me most. I don't want to dwell much on Nintendo and the WiiU since my intention was to debate a little about the state of the industry right now. Can developers still come up with amazing fun and new ideas on PS4? Sure! But to me enhanced visual fidelity, that which is consistantly advertised by developers, does not make for new ideas.
Click to expand...

And people outside of the tech fetishist niche crew recognize this. Take that and combine it with higher development costs, fewer third party games, and high initial hardware costs -- you have a very difficult hill to climb if you want to convey value to a mass market of consumers.

We can already get a preview of this - just look at the miserable failure that is Crysis 3. Dead space 3 wasn't far off and Tomb Raider sold well by today's standards but still hasn't broken even.
 
megabytecr said:
All I have to say is:

Nintendo decided to go a different route.

How different is compared to it's competitors? You could say Wii U is a step back since it offers now a controller that is very similar to every other controller out there except for the screen. Unless you mean from the lack of focus in graphics...

This decision does not bode well with the rest of the industry except for indies.

If the industry though there was money to make on Wii U they would go after it, but it dosn't fit their actually strategy...that's all. And how it does bode well for indies? I mean indie games are doing just fine on PC and other platforms...

Everyone not Nintendo and Indies want the Wii U to fail.

..yeah....right

Wii U is first a Nintendo game machine, then an indie machine. This has been known since forever.

That's not how Iwata and Reggie try to sold the console...

Nintendo does not play the AAA game strategy. In a market crash I think the company that could stand a chance is Nintendo.

They don't play that strategy as a first party, but their other strategy is being eaten quickly by iOS/Android developers...
Click to expand...

.
 
AZ Greg said:
Maybe you should ask some of the Nintendo fans who gif'd this:

zelda-wii-u-tech-demo-2.gif


I think it is pretty safe to assume that this gif wasn't made to demonstrate some new unique never before seen Zelda gameplay.
Click to expand...

That gif is not really disproving my point. That demo was created to appease the changing market I spoke about in my post. While it entices me to imagine what the next Zelda could look like, I find it's underlying significance rather sad, personally. It is ridiculous to see Nintendo struggle trying to explain what the WiiU is, only to yield to its fans and say "yes, it will also look pretty."
 
D-e-f- said:
300px-paris_tuileriesvhkg4.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow, great argument.

When a chip was developed means absolutely nothing. The only thing that matters is performance. There are graphics processors designed in 2012 that have worse performance than stuff released years earlier.

You can point to the 2008 or whatever origin of Wii U's tech all you want, but at the end of the day it does not have next gen performance. Its performance is current gen and only people in serious denial still think otherwise.

No? Its more powerful in many ways.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

The sooner people recognize that, the more it will make sense why the future software lineup is as weak as it is.
 
mentalfloss said:
And people outside of the tech fetishist niche crew recognize this. Take that and combine it with higher development costs, fewer third party games, and high initial hardware costs -- you have a very difficult hill to climb if you want to convey value to a mass market of consumers.

We can already get a preview of this - just look at the miserable failure that is Crysis 3. Dead space 3 wasn't far off and Tomb Raider sold well by today's standards but still hasn't broken even.
Click to expand...

This was the same song and dance Nintendo fans used to justify the Wii. Higher dev costs, fewer third party games, high cost of PS3 and 360 when it came out, only "fetishists" wanted increase in raw power were all supposedly going to make developers and consumers flock to the Wii, and the exact opposite happened.

And it's amazing that people keep perpetuating this myth, especially in light of the WiiU's abysmal sales. History is repeating itself so hard that it's unbelievable some are still blind to it.
 
I find the Vita discussion somewhat misplaced. Is the WiiU's biggest competition really a portable handheld? It's like I'm seeing, "Well the Vita's doing just as badly." The WiiU's supposed to be Nintendo's entry into the next console generation to compete with the PS4 and 720, the item that acts as the premium device to market to the masses, and ensure that the company stays relevant in the general public's mind.

The reason the WiiU's failings are more significant for Nintendo's image than the Vita is to Sony's is because it has a larger market impact within the industry. Even if a portable does well, it's still just a "toy" to the general public, and to a lot of developers as well. Nintendo's toy is selling extremely well, but their premium device is barely selling at all. Sony's toy is starting to pick up slightly, and their premium device is still selling quite nicely, with a new one around the corner.

The success of the premium device is key in securing developer support, and maintaining a positive public image for the company and its products as a whole. Portables will always be kind of an aside to most people, so they really can't be compared on the same level as consoles.
 
EatinOlives said:
This was the same song and dance Nintendo fans used to justify the Wii. Higher dev costs, fewer third party games, high cost of PS3 and 360 when it came out, only "fetishists" wanted increase in raw power were all supposedly going to make developers and consumers flock to the Wii, and the exact opposite happened.

And it's amazing that people keep perpetuating this myth, especially in light of the WiiU's abysmal sales.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how bad Crysis 3 actually bombed. Rockstar is also hurting from Max Payne 3 and LA Noire.
 
mentalfloss said:
And people outside of the tech fetishist niche crew recognize this. Take that and combine it with higher development costs, fewer third party games, and high initial hardware costs -- you have a very difficult hill to climb if you want to convey value to a mass market of consumers.

We can already get a preview of this - just look at the miserable failure that is Crysis 3. Dead space 3 wasn't far off and Tomb Raider sold well by today's standards but still hasn't broken even.
Click to expand...
So I take it that Wii U games will be far worse and less creative than Wii games? I mean, given the vast difference in graphics power between the two...
 
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