Mark Rein: "I'd be shocked if Wii U doesn't do well." UE3 better than Zelda Demo.

nickcv said:
sure, but while sony and microsoft were losing money nintendo has a lot of coins in their warchest, plus they make money out of sw, and they are selling a lot of sw, something that right now vita is not doing!
Click to expand...

Microsoft probably has enough in cash reserves to buy out Sony and Nintendo. :/

And the "Vita business" is intended to be profitable, I'd take that to mean with software and accessories they'd be profiting now - global software tie ratio is around 1.7 + overpriced memory cards. The same approach can be taken with a NextBox or PS4 really.

There's a middle ground between $599 and we can't lose a single dollar at launch.
 
shinra-bansho said:
Microsoft probably has enough in cash reserves to buy out Sony and Nintendo. :/

And the "Vita business" is intended to be profitable, I'd take that to mean with software and accessories they'd be profiting now - global software tie ratio is around 1.7 + overpriced memory cards. The same approach can be taken with a NextBox or PS4 really.

There's a middle ground between $599 and we can't lose a single dollar at launch.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
shinra-bansho said:
Microsoft probably has enough in cash reserves to buy out Sony and Nintendo. :/

And the "Vita business" is intended to be profitable, I'd take that to mean with software and accessories they'd be profiting now - global software tie ratio is around 1.7 + overpriced memory cards. The same approach can be taken with a NextBox or PS4 really.

There's a middle ground between $599 and we can't lose a single dollar at launch.
Click to expand...

Microsoft is not a videogame company.
They sure have a lot of money, but ballmer would never allow a continue bleeding.

The main reason because nintendo microsoft and sony make consoles is only one: profit.

and while Vita business will become profitable they are not selling so much sw right now, and you have to remember that they have also to recoup the initial investment for R&D... will they be profitable? sure!

will they be outsold by the gamecube in 5 weeks in japan? sure!
 
AceBandage said:
It's no where near that simple.
At all.
Click to expand...

I realise that, an acquisition would push up the price, etc. etc., and I'm no financial analyst. But it speaks to their comparative scale.

The idea that Nintendo have some huge warchest at their disposal in comparison to Microsoft is silly.
 
AceBandage said:
So.. the game had multiple engines...?
Click to expand...
You know what I mean, there is no need for these kind of posts. If Hollywood chip had shader 3.0 support you could port any 360/PS3 game on it. It would look like crap, of course, but it would still run. As I said, to me, imaging something like RDR would be totally different game.
 
shinra-bansho said:
I realise that, an acquisition would push up the price, etc. etc., and I'm no financial analyst.

But the idea that Nintendo have some huge warchest at their disposal in comparison to Microsoft is silly.
Click to expand...

Except that you're counting MS as an entire company.
You really think that they'll use that entire fund for their single video game portion?

DarkChild said:
You know what I mean, there is no need for these kind of posts. If Hollywood chip had shader 3.0 support you could port any 360/PS3 game on it. It would look like crap, of course, but it would still run. As I said, to me, imaging something like RDR would be totally different game.
Click to expand...



Right, except that the gap between the Wii U and whatever the PS4/Nextbox uses won't be anywhere close to the difference between the Wii and PS3/360.
 
shinra-bansho said:
Microsoft probably has enough in cash reserves to buy out Sony and Nintendo. :/

And the "Vita business" is intended to be profitable, I'd take that to mean with software and accessories they'd be profiting now - global software tie ratio is around 1.7 + overpriced memory cards. The same approach can be taken with a NextBox or PS4 really.

There's a middle ground between $599 and we can't lose a single dollar at launch.
Click to expand...

This times 1000000. So much freakin hyperbole regarding the possibility MS/Sony making powerful hardware. It's rare to have a convo without "STUDIOS WILL SHUT DOWN!" "$599!"
"Diminishing Returns!".

Especially when no one knows how long, or how much they're willing to lose on hardware. And most importantly, there overall vision. (They could potentially want the next gen to last until 2020)
 
nickcv said:
didn't you get the memo?
nintendo is doomed!

i really can't wait for E3 to see the end of all these talks V_V
Click to expand...
lol you really think that's going to stop the Nintendo is doomed posts? The DS and Wii became the fastest selling systems in history and people still said they should guit and just make ios games.
 
Metroid-Squadron said:
Did any of the Wii-U games shown so far look any better than curreng gen stuff? Nope. That is enough to get a ballpark estimation of its graphical capabilities.

I could be wrong, of course.
Click to expand...

Games shown so far running on the Wii U:

Tech demos running on Wii engines as proof of concept for the controller.
Pre Alpha shooters that were made in a few months.

Yep, totally indicative of what the system is capable of.
 
aquavelva said:
lol you really think that's going to stop the Nintendo is doomed posts? The DS and Wii became the fastest selling systems in history and people still said they should guit and just make ios games.
Click to expand...

i'm at the point of boredom with the "<platform> is doomed" - it's shitting up EVERY thread at the moment and it's boring as hell.

It's not a debate - it's just the same people posting the same shite over and over and half the time most of the posters on one side don't ACTUALLY give a shit.

Games shown so far running on the Wii U:

Tech demos running on Wii engines as proof of concept for the controller.
Pre Alpha shooters that were made in a few months.

Yep, totally indicative of what the system is capable of.
Click to expand...

and all of those would be running on PC's with target specs for the time, probably with a wired "concept" Pad as well. There's a lot of things that can change for the better or for the worse - we simply don't know. Again, all part of the excitement of the event. I like it's staying relatively close to Nintendo's chest and i expect - when revealed - that Nintendo will _exceed_ expectations of what the machine can do.
 
DarkChild said:
I don't really care so much if they run it or not, I'm basically guessing like anyone else. Wii U suddenly get from updated HD consoles this gen to something better than current top end PC's after somebody said that new dev kits are more powerful and Samaritan looks like crap compared to UE4.

I don't think you can go from something that runs UE3 or even DX11 UE3 Samaritan to next generation engine like UE4 just like that.
Click to expand...

SO, you are implying that current top of the lines OC won't run UE4 and that the Ps4/720 are going to be more powerful? Ok...

Metroid-Squadron said:
Did any of the Wii-U games shown so far look any better than curreng gen stuff? Nope. That is enough to get a ballpark estimation of its graphical capabilities.

I could be wrong, of course.
Click to expand...

And that's why current 360's are re-branded PPC G3 Macs.
 
Glorified G said:
This times 1000000. So much freakin hyperbole regarding the possibility MS/Sony making powerful hardware. It's rare to have a convo without "STUDIOS WILL SHUT DOWN!" "$599!"
"Diminishing Returns!".

Especially when no one knows how long, or how much they're willing to lose on hardware. And most importantly, there overall vision. (They could potentially want the next gen to last until 2020)
Click to expand...

599 was bleeding edge at a loss

you have to make money, so you have to lower the specs to make profit for 599.

but you cannot sell the console at that price, so you have to lower the specs even more.

i'm not an analyst but i think there are 3 main reasons why no one ever did a 20 year cycle:

1 - consumers need new hw to keep up their interest.
2 - to make a console that much future proof you'd need the best bleeding edge tech, raising the price so much that you won't probably be able to sell much hw, therefore lowering your userbase and the profit you get from sw
3 - it doesn't matter how much future proof you'll make a console, after 10 years the common hw would blow out of the water whatever you putted inside your console.
 
Lonely1 said:
SO, you are implying that current top of the lines OC won't run UE4 and that the Ps4/720 are going to be more powerful? Ok...
Click to expand...
I'm not implying that at all, I said I'm not even sure if next generation consoles are going to run it if they are released next year.
 
Metroid-Squadron said:
Did any of the Wii-U games shown so far look any better than curreng gen stuff? Nope. That is enough to get a ballpark estimation of its graphical capabilities.

I could be wrong, of course.
Click to expand...

What Wii U games shown? We haven't seen a single screenshot of an actual Wii U game outside of maybe Ghost Recon which looks the same as the PC version. Even the sizzle reel at last year's E3 was of PS3/360 games. The best we really have to look at is maybe Epic's UE3 sizzle reel they released last week with footage of Aliens for the Wii U segment, but no one even knows if that was actually Wii U footage.

Unless you're going off of the graphics used in the demos on the show floor....
 
nickcv said:
599 was bleeding edge at a loss

you have to make money, so you have to lower the specs to make profit for 599.

but you cannot sell the console at that price, so you have to lower the specs even more.

i'm not an analyst but i think there are 3 main reasons why no one ever did a 20 year cycle:

1 - consumers need new hw to keep up their interest.
2 - to make a console that much future proof you'd need the best bleeding edge tech, raising the price so much that you won't probably be able to sell much hw, therefore lowering your userbase and the profit you get from sw
3 - it doesn't matter how much future proof you'll make a console, after 10 years the common hw would blow whatever you putted inside your console.
Click to expand...
I will repeat this again : Sony lost money because of design and architecture choice and blu ray disk. Not because GPU and CPU were god given.
 
Nirolak said:
He just did exactly that for the Vita, iPad, and Flash. :P
Click to expand...

If Wii U can't run UE4, I'll be concerned about the coverage of third-party ports next generation. The article talking about Nintendo having upped specs as part of making sure it could run UE4 and Epic being unusually up on the system and the forced NDA (i.e. Nintendo's MO, for sure) support that, in my opinion. Didn't know he was still hyping UE3 on some platforms, though. Hopefully the other reasons combined with this one still point to UE4 support. :)
 
donny2112 said:
If Wii U can't run UE4, I'll be concerned about the coverage of third-party ports next generation. The article talking about Nintendo having upped specs as part of making sure it could run UE4 and Epic being unusually up on the system and the forced NDA (i.e. Nintendo's MO, for sure) support that, in my opinion. Didn't know he was still hyping UE3 on some platforms, though. Hopefully the other reasons combined with this one still point to UE4 support. :)
Click to expand...

Which article is this one?

Also, here is Mark Rein on the Vita, a platform Epic isn't making any games for:

Joystiq said:
"The Vita blew me away," Rein told us. "I was shocked at how badly I wanted to take one of those home with me."
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/14/water-meet-fish-epic-games-mark-rein-on-wii-u-ps-vita-and/
 
donny2112 said:
If Wii U can't run UE4, I'll be concerned about the coverage of third-party ports next generation. The article talking about Nintendo having upped specs as part of making sure it could run UE4 and Epic being unusually up on the system and the forced NDA (i.e. Nintendo's MO, for sure) support that, in my opinion. Didn't know he was still hyping UE3 on some platforms, though. Hopefully the other reasons combined with this one still point to UE4 support. :)
Click to expand...

Of course they're going to hype UE3. Not everyone can afford UE4, so there has to be a place for small companies to go and that includes UE3, which still looks good and will look good on the next batch of hardware. Smart idea to be pimpin' both, to be honest.
 
nickcv said:
599 was bleeding edge at a loss

you have to make money, so you have to lower the specs to make profit for 599.

but you cannot sell the console at that price, so you have to lower the specs even more.

i'm not an analyst but i think there are 3 main reasons why no one ever did a 20 year cycle:

1 - consumers need new hw to keep up their interest.
2 - to make a console that much future proof you'd need the best bleeding edge tech, raising the price so much that you won't probably be able to sell much hw, therefore lowering your userbase and the profit you get from sw
3 - it doesn't matter how much future proof you'll make a console, after 10 years the common hw would blow whatever you putted inside your console.
Click to expand...

Blu ray was the main reason PS3 was $599 in the first place. Which is so annoying why people keep using this price point as an excuse for powerful hardware. Xbox 360 was $399/299 with comparable hardware.

I wasn't talking about a 20 year cycle. If MS/Sony releases their consoles in 2013 with a 7 year cycle it would last until 2020.
 
He doesn't even so much as mention UE4. What kind of ridiculous leaps in logic allow you to assume this means UE4 won't be possible on the Wii U? How do some of you get through life connecting seemingly unrelated dots in such haphazard fashions?
 
DarkChild said:
I will repeat this again : Sony lost money because of design and architecture choice and blu ray disk. Not because GPU and CPU were god given.
Click to expand...

and i will repeat myself telling you that if you guys expect bleeding edge tech without sony taking a loss you are being delusional.

a console is not a pc, you can't just use out of the shelf parts, because people don't want a huge case under their tv sets, and you have to take into account power consumption and heat.

look how much it cost right now the last alienware htpc http://www.alienware.com/Landings/desktops.aspx

it's 699 for
2nd Gen Intel Core i processors
8GB 1333Mhz Dual Channel memory *
1GB GDDR5 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 555 video card with 330W PSU *
Slot-loading Dual Layer Blu-ray reader
Integrated Wireless LAN card (standard

Sony and microsoft have to sell this thing for no more then 450$, lower the specs of that thing accordingly and you'll see that it won't be that bleeding edge.

And i forgot, this thing doesn't have kinect, so lower more the specs to put bundle kinect with it.
 
DCharlie said:
i'm at the point of boredom with the "<platform> is doomed" - it's shitting up EVERY thread at the moment and it's boring as hell.

It's not a debate - it's just the same people posting the same shite over and over and half the time most of the posters on one side don't ACTUALLY give a shit.



and all of those would be running on PC's with target specs for the time, probably with a wired "concept" Pad as well. There's a lot of things that can change for the better or for the worse - we simply don't know. Again, all part of the excitement of the event. I like it's staying relatively close to Nintendo's chest and i expect - when revealed - that Nintendo will _exceed_ expectations of what the machine can do.
Click to expand...
whoa now. are you trying to tell me Nintendo is NOT doomed? That's crazy talk, friend.
 
shinra-bansho said:
The idea that Nintendo have some huge warchest at their disposal in comparison to Microsoft is silly.
Click to expand...

Microsoft has a huge cash reserve compared to Nintendo sure, but considering the portion of that to be ear-marked for video games, it's reasonable that Nintendo's might actually be bigger (not that either would actually spend it). Microsoft has been about bleeding at first to get into a market, but then either the market is sustainable on its own merits or they tend to put it on the back-burner. Xbox was the bleeder for Microsoft. Gates even said at one point that if he could call up Yamauchi (majority share holder) to buy Nintendo, he would. 360 was about coming into profitability overall for the console. They're unlikely to want to return to Xbox levels of losses over the long-term, though.

Nirolak said:
Which article is this one?
Click to expand...

http://www.nintendoenthusiast.com/an-industry-exclusive-look-into-next-gen-wii-u/

There's been some discussion about whether the article is somehow made up of rumors from GAF, but from the article, it seems to be probably legit to my un-tech trained eye. *shrugs*
 
AceBandage said:
Not really fair, though.
Factor 5 and the GC were fucking magic.
Though the final game definitely looked better.
Click to expand...
I'm just talking about a ballpark estimation here so while current tech demos and games shown might not be the best the Wii-U can do, they give us an idea of what we can expect.
 
AceBandage said:
Not really fair, though.
Factor 5 and the GC were fucking magic.
Though the final game definitely looked better.
Click to expand...
And Factor 5 worked along Nintendo with the GameCube too; so is not like they were studio that got some early dev kits to try things out.

So far, the only thing we've seen on Wii U is an Ubisoft game. Yet, people talk "games running on Wii U" as if we've seen many of them. Like last year's trailer with 360/PS3 footage, that somehow looked worse. :p
 
nickcv said:
and i will repeat myself telling you that if you guys expect bleeding edge tech without sony taking a loss you are being delusional.

a console is not a pc, you can't just use out of the shelf parts, because people don't want a huge case under their tv sets, and you have to take into account power consumption and heat.

look how much it cost right now the last alienware htpc http://www.[B]alienware[/B].com/Landings/desktops.aspx

it's 699 for
2nd Gen Intel Core i processors
8GB 1333Mhz Dual Channel memory *
1GB GDDR5 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 555 video card with 330W PSU *
Slot-loading Dual Layer Blu-ray reader
Integrated Wireless LAN card (standard

Sony and microsoft have to sell this thing for no more then 450$, lower the specs of that thing accordingly and you'll see that it won't be that bleeding edge.

And i forgot, this thing doesn't have kinect, so lower more the specs to put bundle kinect with it.
Click to expand...

Alienware... pay 200 for the name, if your lucky.
 
DarkChild said:
I'm not implying that at all, I said I'm not even sure if next generation consoles are going to run it if they are released next year.
Click to expand...

Well, will you agree with the following?

If UE4 is running on current PCs is very possible that it will also run on Wii U. If UE4 can't run on current PCs, it won't run on Wii U and is highly unlikely that it will run on the nextbox and the Ps4.
 
nickcv said:
and i will repeat myself telling you that if you guys expect bleeding edge tech without sony taking a loss you are being delusional.

a console is not a pc, you can't just use out of the shelf parts, because people don't want a huge case under their tv sets, and you have to take into account power consumption and heat.

look how much it cost right now the last alienware htpc http://www.alienware.com/Landings/desktops.aspx

it's 699 for
2nd Gen Intel Core i processors
8GB 1333Mhz Dual Channel memory *
1GB GDDR5 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 555 video card with 330W PSU *
Slot-loading Dual Layer Blu-ray reader
Integrated Wireless LAN card (standard

Sony and microsoft have to sell this thing for no more then 450$, lower the specs of that thing accordingly and you'll see that it won't be that bleeding edge.

And i forgot, this thing doesn't have kinect, so lower more the specs to put bundle kinect with it.
Click to expand...
Um all the parts in that are sold for profit along supply chain from component manufacturers to hardware manufacturers to aleinware and then on to you. A console manufacturere would be buying in large bulk and getting the whole thing built in a single factory reducing costs and then selling for cost/loss.
 
nickcv said:
and i will repeat myself telling you that if you guys expect bleeding edge tech without sony taking a loss you are being delusional.

a console is not a pc, you can't just use out of the shelf parts, because people don't want a huge case under their tv sets, and you have to take into account power consumption and heat.

look how much it cost right now the last alienware htpc http://www.alienware.com/Landings/desktops.aspx

it's 699 for
2nd Gen Intel Core i processors
8GB 1333Mhz Dual Channel memory *
1GB GDDR5 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 555 video card with 330W PSU *
Slot-loading Dual Layer Blu-ray reader
Integrated Wireless LAN card (standard

Sony and microsoft have to sell this thing for no more then 450$, lower the specs of that thing accordingly and you'll see that it won't be that bleeding edge.

And i forgot, this thing doesn't have kinect, so lower more the specs to put bundle kinect with it.
Click to expand...
And that IS exactly the PROBLEM. PS3 architecture. Expensive CPU needed XDR ram. They payed alot for these things and then they went to Nvidia and picked best GPU available. On top of that they put wi fi and blu ray in it. In 2005 that was horribly costly.
Microsoft was more modest with no wi fi and blu ray. They didn't go exotic on architecture and didn't pound 500 million in CPU design, they went with great GPU and good CPU to support it. Put 512 megs and voila.

There is no reason for them not to do it this generation again since 360 launch version with HDD was less than your 450$, and it was bleeding edge.
 
pieatorium said:
Um all the parts in that are sold for profit along supply chain from component manufacturers to hardware manufacturers to aleinware and then on to you. A console manufacturere would be buying in large bulk and getting the whole thing built in a single factory reducing costs and then selling for cost/loss.
Click to expand...

the whole point of the discussion is that i don't think sony can afford selling at a loss or for cost... they need money now.

DarkChild said:
And that IS exactly the PROBLEM. PS3 architecture. Expensive CPU needed XDR ram. They payed alot for these things and then they went to Nvidia and picked best GPU available. On top of that they put wi fi and blu ray in it. In 2005 that was horribly costly.
Microsoft was more modest with no wi fi and blu ray. They didn't go exotic on architecture and didn't pound 500 million in CPU design, they went with great GPU and good CPU to support it. Put 512 megs and voila.

There is no reason for them not to do it this generation again since 360 launch version with HDD was less than your 450$, and it was bleeding edge.
Click to expand...

and poor design costed them 1 billion of dollars because of the RROD...

anyhow i gotta sleep now, here it's 4am and i'm supposed to work tomorrow morning :P

Ace, fight the good fight!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

THPS is much better than skate
2
52
570
CGNoire replied
Better Than Dead - Announcement Trailer
20
409
Mark Mocherad replied
What if the WII U was successful?
2
53
534
Alan Wake replied
Do any of the GTA clones have better gameplay than GTA?
2
79
2K
wolfboy203 replied
  • Poll
Do you still need better graphics than we have now?
2
96
3K
Grildon Tundy replied
Top Bottom