Support NeoGAF

[Disguises]

Question, the Battlefield footage during the EA portion of the conference, was that from BF3, and was that original footage, or just taken from a gameplay session from the PC or what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBd_baIBf6A

I think most (if not, all) the third party footage was from 360/PS3/PC at e3.

 

[Hero of Legend]

I think most (if not, all) the third party footage was from 360/PS3/PC at e3.

That I know, but I wasn't sure about this, Madden might've been Wii U footage judging by the drawing section.

 

[Disguises]

That I know, but I wasn't sure about this, Madden might've been Wii U footage judging by the drawing section.

I'm going to assume that the drawing sections were just mock-up videos to show their ideas with Xbox or PS3 footage being used for the gameplay sections.

 

[watershed]

I like how some posters (I'm not singling out Luckyman because there have been a ton of others) make judgements about the tech and graphical capabilities of the wii u, of which we know very little, based on assumptions about the power of the next Sony and Microsoft consoles, of which we know nothing. The leaps in logic necessary to make these arguments is kinda fun to read. But saying that I've probably been guilty of doing the same in the past.

 

[BurntPork]

Wii U will never be in a PS2 position. PS4/720 will never be in Xbox position.

720 is successor for great core gamer console with strong following. PS4 is successor for solid but not spectacular core gamer console with strong following. Xbox was coming from absolutely nowhere.

PS2 was the lead platform for virtually every multiplatorm game out there. Xbox was barely scratched. PS2 Xbox tech difference still wasn't as big as Wii U vs competition will be.. But if someone had PS2 and a Xbox surely he bought the Xbox versions.

May I borrow your crystal ball?

 

[Vinci]

I like how some posters (I'm not singling out Luckyman because there have been a ton of others) make judgements about the tech and graphical capabilities of the wii u, of which we know very little, based on assumptions about the power of the next Sony and Microsoft consoles, of which we know nothing. The leaps in logic necessary to make these arguments is kinda fun to read. But saying that I've probably been guilty of doing the same in the past.

Well, I think it's reasonable to assume that the PS4 and 720 will be more powerful. And I do feel that it's in MS and Sony's best interests to make the gulf as big as possible, given they can afford to. [MS definitely can; Sony is less definite.]

I don't think either company wants to share the stage with Nintendo and compete with them on a 1st-party basis - they'll be destroyed. Of course this depends on whether Nintendo can create an online platform worth a damn, which is more concern-worthy than the graphics power.

 

[watershed]

Well, I think it's reasonable to assume that the PS4 and 720 will be more powerful. And I do feel that it's in MS and Sony's best interests to make the gulf as big as possible, given they can afford to. [MS definitely can; Sony is less definite.]

I don't think either company wants to share the stage with Nintendo and compete with them on a 1st-party basis - they'll be destroyed. Of course this depends on whether Nintendo can create an online platform worth a damn, which is more concern-worthy than the graphics power.

Part of the problem for me is that people are arguing over matters of degrees that don't have any real value. For example the wii u will be like the ps2 to Microsoft's xbox or the wii u will be like the wii again to the ps3. Firstly we don't know how powerful the wii u is, most of what we have is a spec range and some vague developer comments. Second we know even less about Sony and Microsoft's next offering. Its like basing your argument, stated as a matter of fact, on sparse facts about the wii u and no facts about the 720 and ps4. I personally feel its not a convincing or interesting line of speculation, but that's just me.

And lastly, in the last two gens the most powerful console has not seen the most success. So if the argument is about the success of a console, maybe graphics isn't the best lead-in to that argument.

 

[lwilliams3]

Since it's somewhat on the topic, I will focus on a quote from Mark Rein from an article posted eariler.

Mark Rein: We’ve already built next-generational features into UE3. If you saw Samaritan at GDC this year, that was super-high-end stuff. We didn’t hide the fact that that is our proposal for what next gen should be. And those DX11 features have been in the UDK since just after GDC, so customers have been working with that for several months. We don’t know what the next-gen consoles will be, when they’ll come and how much power they’ll have, or how much of a generational leap there’ll be, so it’s really hard to say. But if the next generation of consoles is the DX11 generation, then UE3 can already do that.

Does it become Unreal Engine 4? Possibly. We just don’t know yet. I think we’ll have a pretty good idea of that in about a year’s time.

http://www.next-gen.biz/features/epic-making-something-unreal

This answer points out several things that are not known or ignored by those who claim that the Wii U will possibly suffer the same problems as the Wii did with game development.

1) The Samaritan demo (which more tech-savvy people are questioning if next gen consoles will be powerful enough to run) still used UE3

2) UE3 will likely continue to be used for the next-gen consoles.

3) Epic doesn't know where UE4 fits in yet.

4) Even Mark Rein doesn't know or will try to officially predict how powerful the next-gen Xbox/PS4 may be at this time.

We already know that Wii U is able to run UE3, and being able to use the same popular engine as the other consoles is a major step up compared to what was done on the Wii. Another difference is that Nintendo's console is coming out before the other more powerful systems, while the Wii came out a year after the 360.

 

[Vinci]

Part of the problem for me is that people are arguing over matters of degrees that don't have any real value. For example the wii u will be like the ps2 to Microsoft's xbox or the wii u will be like the wii again to the ps3. Firstly we don't know how powerful the wii u is, most of what we have is a spec range and some vague developer comments. Second we know even less about Sony and Microsoft's next offering. Its like basing your argument, stated as a matter of fact, on sparse facts about the wii u and no facts about the 720 and ps4. I personally feel its not a convincing or interesting line of speculation, but that's just me.

First of all, I agree with this. I'm not arguing otherwise. What I am doing is assuming that companies will do what's in their best interest to do, and that's why I'm making the assumptions I am about the 3 systems. Yes, there's plenty of room for error - eg., I have no idea if Sony can afford to go crazy on another console, whereas I'm pretty certain MS can, if they so choose. I think discussing things from a business standpoint as opposed to a console fanboy viewpoint of, "Well, Sony's next system is going to be jawesome! Obviously! It's in their DNA! Power! Woo-hoo!"... is actually interesting. There's no doubt that Sony and MS are watching Nintendo closely and will change their plans based on what the company does. Most importantly, they're both probably watching what Nintendo does with online, as that's a key difference between their offerings and Nintendo's - especially in MS's case.

And lastly, in the last two gens the most powerful console has not seen the most success. So if the argument is about the success of a console, maybe graphics isn't the best lead-in to that argument.

I don't give a shit about graphics. I'm talking about corporate strategy.

 

[BurntPork]

I admit it's likely that they'll be far more powerful than the Wii U, though. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if both companies - upon learning what the Wii U is capable of - boost their designs up as much as possible to try and mitigate Nintendo's attempt to encroach on the core market. It would be the smart thing to do. They never want this to end up a 1st-party competition.

I disagree. The "hardcore" audience will gravitate toward them no matter what. It doesn't make any sense to spend more just to squeeze Nintendo out. It land them them in a situation where either the price is too high to be competitive, or the losses are ridiculous. In addition to that, each of them would have to assume that the other will do the same, because if only one of them does it, that one ends up wasting A LOT of money. No matter what they do, most gamers will choose their console based on games and online capabilities above all else. It would be more cost-effective and less risky to spend more on those than to try to put the Wii U into a Wii-type position, especially since, depending on how powerful the Wii U is, they might end up having to wait until 2015 to even come close to being able to do that, and then they look even more stupid because it'll probably take a year for that position to solidify, which gives Nintendo a chance to release a new console in 2017-18 to catch up and leave Sony and MS feeling like a bunch of jackasses. They have nothing to gain from spending more to do that. They're better off staying on they're current target and bragging about what power they have over Wii U, no matter how small, and using it as a cost-free selling point.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

When are you guys going to learn. luckyman is nothing but a troll that hits and runs.

Ignore him

This needs to be quoted so people read it.

Well, I think it's reasonable to assume that the PS4 and 720 will be more powerful. And I do feel that it's in MS and Sony's best interests to make the gulf as big as possible, given they can afford to. [MS definitely can; Sony is less definite.]

I don't think either company wants to share the stage with Nintendo and compete with them on a 1st-party basis - they'll be destroyed. Of course this depends on whether Nintendo can create an online platform worth a damn, which is more concern-worthy than the graphics power.

Sure, they're releasing after the Wii-U, they're going to be more powerful. Its a matter of how much though, and if that makes a visible to the masses difference. That is where I'm going to say that the 720 and PS4 aren't going to be that much more powerful than the Wii-U.

I really don't think Sony can afford it. I really don't think its a good business plan. Unless people think losing all the money they made on the PS1 and PS2 with the PS3 was a good business plan. I think the smartest thing for Sony to do would be to look back at the PS1 and PS2 and remember what made them successful. Before the core games showed up they were both consoles that hit a great balance of hardware performance and cost.

With the 720, yeah MS can afford to go balls to the wall. Will the stockholders and board members let them though. This Xbox experiment of theirs has yet to turn the big profits that they're wanting. Plus MS is currently in full on kinect mode. I personally can see them going with a system that isn't as big of a jump hardware wise. That puts more of the cost into advancing the kinect technology.

I personally think the rumors of the 720 being powered by an AMD fusion chipset are possibly true. Specially since it seems the system will be announced next E3. Depending on the Fusion chipset they go with, they may not be that far ahead of where the Wii-U is.

I really think next generation is going to see all 3 consoles a lot closer in power than this one. Anyone expecting the 720 or PS4 to be some beast with 8 gigs of ram and a high end HD6000 or high end Nvidia GPU really needs to curb their expectations.

 

[Vinci]

I disagree. The "hardcore" audience will gravitate toward them no matter what. It doesn't make any sense to spend more just to squeeze Nintendo out. It land them them in a situation where either the price is too high to be competitive, or the losses are ridiculous. In addition to that, each of them would have to assume that the other will do the same, because if only one of them does it, that one ends up wasting A LOT of money. No matter what they do, most gamers will choose their console based on games and online capabilities above all else. It would be more cost-effective and less risky to spend more on those than to try to put the Wii U into a Wii-type position, especially since, depending on how powerful the Wii U is, they might end up having to wait until 2015 to even come close to being able to do that, and then they look even more stupid because it'll probably take a year for that position to solidify, which gives Nintendo a chance to release a new console in 2017-18 to catch up and leave Sony and MS feeling like a bunch of jackasses. They have nothing to gain from spending more to do that. They're better off staying on they're current target and bragging about what power they have over Wii U, no matter how small, and using it as a cost-free selling point.

Sony and MS are horrible at 'cost-free selling points,' though. Nintendo is far more interested in those sorts of things. I think they'll go high to make the difference in games as noticeable as possible. [No, they won't get into a Wii vs. PS360 level - but they'll want it to be distinct.]

The only way they'd play safe on specs would be if they assume Nintendo will fuck up online. Which they might, but they'll wait for Nintendo to provide more information before doing that.

 

[Luckyman]

This flies in the face of what has actually happened. The 360 is less powerful than the PS3, but it far more often receives the best version of multiplatform content. Power did not decide that - developers did. And the power difference between the Wii U and the PS4/720, whatever that ends up being, won't mean as much due to the scalability of engines.

360 being less powerful than PS3 how? It´s certainly much easier.

When are you guys going to learn. luckyman is nothing but a troll that hits and runs.

Ignore him

Don't like the music?

I see you spouting a ton off stuff. I guess we will see who is right.

 

[BurntPork]

Sony and MS are horrible at 'cost-free selling points,' though. Nintendo is far more interested in those sorts of things. I think they'll go high to make the difference in games as noticeable as possible. [No, they won't get into a Wii vs. PS360 level - but they'll want it to be distinct.]

The only way they'd play safe on specs would be if they assume Nintendo will fuck up online. Which they might, but they'll wait for Nintendo to provide more information before doing that.

The difference for that will almost certainly be there regardless. They're going to be using new tech than Wii U with better features that the WU's modified R700 simply won't have. That should be enough, really.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Sony and MS are horrible at 'cost-free selling points,' though. Nintendo is far more interested in those sorts of things. I think they'll go high to make the difference in games as noticeable as possible. [No, they won't get into a Wii vs. PS360 level - but they'll want it to be distinct.]

The only way they'd play safe on specs would be if they assume Nintendo will fuck up online. Which they might, but they'll wait for Nintendo to provide more information before doing that.

I don't think MS is going to play the waiting game. All the rumors have them announcing their next console at E3 next year. Nintendo may not release any definitive information about their online till then.

Sony I suppose could wait, because its sounding like they'll be the last ones out of this gate. That said though I really don't think they can afford going balls to the wall with hardware.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

The difference for that will almost certainly be there regardless. They're going to be using new tech than Wii U with better features that the WU's modified R700 simply won't have. That should be enough, really.

Can I borrow your crystal ball? I'd love to know the winning lottery numbers for next time the mega millions hits like 315 mill. I mean since you used it to find out what modifications Nintendo had done to the AMD chip, and what new features no GPUs currently have that are going to be definitely included in the 720/PS4.

We have no idea what kind of features Nintendo has or has not had added to their GPU. Plus there isn't much added to DX11 that AMD's DX 10.1 chips couldn't do in some fashion.

 

[TheNatural]

What developers think of the Wii U (Eurogamer)

All that crap is nice rhetoric, but it's no different than the shit they were saying about the Gamecube and Wii before they released.

For Gamecube it was "oh Nintendo's learned from their mistakes! And we can take of the power advantage over PS2."

And Wii it was "wow Nintendo's thinking out of the box! We'll come up with all kinds of ideas for this - plus cost of development is cheaper!"

Now they can't play the not enough power excuse or not big enough disc, but it will always be something. It's already kinda started with Ubi Soft choosing to make a free online game port of Ghost Recon instead of their other 360/PS3 game that looks a lot better. I don't see why companies are so retarded. Like Rockstar with Wii - hey lets make a Bully port, and we'll even make an exclusive - Manhunt 2! When they just as easily could have put the same effort into a GTA collection with something like Vice City Stories or something that would have gotten a lot more attention and sold 10 times as many.

Until they actually back up what they say for a change, I won't believe it. There's absolutely no reason why some of the bigger name franchises can't come to Wii U, when they put the same effort into B rate franchises. THQ better have Saints Row 3 on Wii U, there's no reason not to, no reason for Rockstar to not have GTA V on this system, and so on.

 

[antonz]

People get way to caught up in the numbers. Direct X 10.1 is more or less an early version of 11. Yes 11 can handle things more smoothly but it doesnt do things much differently than 10.1

In the end Nintendo wont be using DX anyways but the feature sets are basically identical

 

[Pancakes R Us]

Can I borrow your crystal ball? I'd love to know the winning lottery numbers for next time the mega millions hits like 315 mill. I mean since you used it to find out what modifications Nintendo had done to the AMD chip, and what new features no GPUs currently have that are going to be definitely included in the 720/PS4.

We have no idea what kind of features Nintendo has or has not had added to their GPU. Plus there isn't much added to DX11 that AMD's DX 10.1 chips couldn't do in some fashion.

Mate, you don't need a crystal ball to know that PS4/362 will be more powerful than Wii U.

 

[lwilliams3]

The difference for that will almost certainly be there regardless. They're going to be using new tech than Wii U with better features that the WU's modified R700 simply won't have. That should be enough, really.

Well, what Vinci is pointing out that those extra features may not be significantly noticeable to the audience. Due to diminishing returns and budget costs, though, that could still be an factor anyway even if Sony and/or Microsoft attempt to go all out in power.

 

[lwilliams3]

Mate, you don't need a crystal ball to know that PS4/362 will be more powerful than Wii U.

Power wasn't the problem with the statement. It was the assumption that PS4/Xbox720 will have alot of graphical features that the Wii U can not do.

 

[Easy_D]

Power wasn't the problem with the statement. It was the assumption that PS4/Xbox720 will have alot of graphical features that the Wii U can not do.

Well there's more than just graphical capabilities, sometimes the hardware gap can limit the gameplay as well. I mean imagine if Capcom spent 2 weeks on making a Dead Rising port on the Wii, there'd be like what? 20 zombies on screen at once, tops!

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Mate, you don't need a crystal ball to know that PS4/362 will be more powerful than Wii U.

I wasn't talking about the power of the system. If you read any of my previous posts, like literally right above those, you'd see I expect the PS4/720 to be more powerful. They're coming after it so they will be.

That said though there are no features on any of the current GPU chips that can't be done on the RV770 line. Hence I'd like his crystal ball since he knows what Nintendo took out, and what modern not invented yet technology Sony and MS are including.

 

[crazy monkey]

All that crap is nice rhetoric, but it's no different than the shit they were saying about the Gamecube and Wii before they released.

For Gamecube it was "oh Nintendo's learned from their mistakes! And we can take of the power advantage over PS2."

And Wii it was "wow Nintendo's thinking out of the box! We'll come up with all kinds of ideas for this - plus cost of development is cheaper!"

Now they can't play the not enough power excuse or not big enough disc, but it will always be something. It's already kinda started with Ubi Soft choosing to make a free online game port of Ghost Recon instead of their other 360/PS3 game that looks a lot better. I don't see why companies are so retarded. Like Rockstar with Wii - hey lets make a Bully port, and we'll even make an exclusive - Manhunt 2! When they just as easily could have put the same effort into a GTA collection with something like Vice City Stories or something that would have gotten a lot more attention and sold 10 times as many.

Until they actually back up what they say for a change, I won't believe it. There's absolutely no reason why some of the bigger name franchises can't come to Wii U, when they put the same effort into B rate franchises. THQ better have Saints Row 3 on Wii U, there's no reason not to, no reason for Rockstar to not have GTA V on this system, and so on.

that was very very sad decision. I still have no idea why they did not port GTA collection or somthing.

 

[bgassassin]

Well there's more than just graphical capabilities, sometimes the hardware gap can limit the gameplay as well. I mean imagine if Capcom spent 2 weeks on making a Dead Rising port on the Wii, there'd be like what? 20 zombies on screen at once, tops!

I think the point you're missing is the hardware gap this time around will not be anything like the one experienced by the Wii.

 

[BurntPork]

Can I borrow your crystal ball? I'd love to know the winning lottery numbers for next time the mega millions hits like 315 mill. I mean since you used it to find out what modifications Nintendo had done to the AMD chip, and what new features no GPUs currently have that are going to be definitely included in the 720/PS4.

We have no idea what kind of features Nintendo has or has not had added to their GPU. Plus there isn't much added to DX11 that AMD's DX 10.1 chips couldn't do in some fashion.

Okay, might not have. Either way, it's likely that they'll handle many things more efficiently, the most obvious being tessellation (assuming Nintendo doesn't replace the tess unit with a newer one). I really think that Nintendo would be better off using a Juniper chip, but that's just me. Who knows? Maybe they will in the end.

Spoiler

Even when I defend Wii U I get attacked by you guys. *sigh*

 

[Easy_D]

I think the point you're missing is the hardware gap this time around will not be anything like the one experienced by the Wii.

Maybe we'll get games that look half as good and play half as well instead 1/100th as good ;p.

Eh, power really shouldn't be a huge issue since it won't be as behind as the Wii, as stated, but I hope 3rd parties are on-board this time. Though as long as it's not as low as the n64 with its lack of 3rd party games it'll be fine.

 

[Vinci]

I think the point you're missing is the hardware gap this time around will not be anything like the one experienced by the Wii.

Of course not, but his point remains that it's reasonable to assume that MS and Sony want to differentiate their hardware from Nintendo. Why? Because if they're unable to do that, they have to compete with Nintendo in only two ways: Online and 1st party efforts. The latter is a non-starter - they'd be decimated, and 3rd parties would shift towards Nintendo platforms since they're able to amass a greater audience and are more than capable of 3rd parties' content. That leaves online - which is where MS will always attempt to rule and will spend ridiculous sums of money in order to do so. [As I said before: I doubt Nintendo or Sony will come anywhere close in their online solutions to what MS will do.]

I don't believe for a second that either MS or Sony will hold back on hardware power and features unless they know for a fact what Nintendo is doing online. Otherwise, they will want to hit near one another but as far out from Nintendo as possible in order to make the difference as notable as possible (even if it's nowhere near a Wii to 360 gap).

They will do everything in their power, combined power if necessary, to keep it from ever reaching a 1st party battle that determines the fate of a console race.

 

[Shin Johnpv]

Of course not, but his point remains that it's reasonable to assume that MS and Sony want to differentiate their hardware from Nintendo.

They will do everything in their power, combined power if necessary, to keep it from ever reaching a 1st party battle that determines the fate of a console race.

Technology itself, and costs may and probably will prevent Sony and MS from accomplishing this on hardware power. If MS really is showing a system next E3, with hints that it may launch in 2012 or late 2013, the technology isn't going to be there for MS to have something that can't be done on the Wii-U.

The problem with Wii was that they couldn't take their engines from the PS360 and just scale them down. There were things Wii just didn't have which meant graphic engines needed to be re-written completely. That's not going to happen with Wii-U, the engines will be scaled to fit it and the average consumer probably won't be able to tell the difference.

Plus do you REALLY think Sony can afford to release another 599.99 us dollar console that costs them 800 - 900 to make?

 

[bgassassin]

Maybe we'll get games that look half as good and play half as well instead 1/100th as good ;p.

Eh, power really shouldn't be a huge issue since it won't be as behind as the Wii, as stated, but I hope 3rd parties are on-board this time. Though as long as it's not as low as the n64 with its lack of 3rd party games it'll be fine.

I agree with you on that. However the area won't be so much about Wii U having only half a million troops in a Konami game, but will Wii U get Final Fantasy XIV on top of a Crystal Chronicles, or only CC while Sony and MS get the main line. So far that doesn't seem to be the case.

Of course not, but his point remains that it's reasonable to assume that MS and Sony want to differentiate their hardware from Nintendo. Why? Because if they're unable to do that, they have to compete with Nintendo in only two ways: Online and 1st party efforts. The latter is a non-starter - they'd be decimated, and 3rd parties would shift towards Nintendo platforms since they're able to amass a greater audience and are more than capable of 3rd parties' content. That leaves online - which is where MS will always attempt to rule and will spend ridiculous sums of money in order to do so. [As I said before: I doubt Nintendo or Sony will come anywhere close in their online solutions to what MS will do.]

I don't believe for a second that either MS or Sony will hold back on hardware power and features unless they know for a fact what Nintendo is doing online. Otherwise, they will want to hit near one another but as far out from Nintendo as possible in order to make the difference as notable as possible (even if it's nowhere near a Wii to 360 gap).

They will do everything in their power, combined power if necessary, to keep it from ever reaching a 1st party battle that determines the fate of a console race.

Dang, you got all that from his post?

EDIT: But seriously I do expect at least MS to hold back. They've sunk billions into console gaming to finally gain the ground they needed on Sony. I see them going for profitability as soon as possible this time around. Sony is a wild card. Move was fundamentally better (outside of the lag), but still too much like the Wii remote to make consumers see the difference. And MS went directly after their consumer base and from a sales point have gotten a split. So with Sony we will currently be left wondering what are they going to do to stand out? They could go power, but with MS eating into the consumer base, will they make enough money off of software sales to justify a decent sized loss leader. I think Sony will be the one to watch this time around.

 

[herzogzwei1989]

Sorry if already posted.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-27-what-developers-think-of-wii-u-article

28/06/2011 @ 08:00
What Developers Think of Wii U - Article
Wii U by Wesley Yin-Poole and Fred Dutton


You know what you think of the Wii U. We know what we think of the Wii U. But what do game makers and game publishers, the people charged with actually working with the 2012 home console, think of the Wii U? At E3 this month Eurogamer asked them.

Frank Gibeau, president, EA Games:

We're big supporters of it. There's a lot of advances in processing and GPUs and also what's happening on the interface level and online, and we're very pleased Nintendo has come out with a machine that can do HD.

The controller is awesome. It's fantastic. I loved the golf ball on the ground. That was a great visual. Like Miyamoto said, it'll open up new ways to play games we haven't even discovered yet. We have to spend time with the hardware and start to bring designs over to see what works, how it works and what you can do.

You saw with Madden football, obviously there are lots of cool new things you can do, and with FIFA [it could control] the way you call plays. We are looking at the Battlefield experience to Wii U. Nothing specific to announce, but we've already started looking at how we're going to do that and what the features will be.

I believe it is [capable of reproducing PS3 and Xbox 360 visuals]. It certainly has the high-definition resolution. But it looks like it's definitely competitive. And it'll do some very unique things.

Danny Bilson, core games boss, THQ:

I loved it [when Nintendo presented the console to THQ]. I just thought, there's nothing but creative possibility. What can we do with that controller that'll give some unique experiences with our games, or how does it make some of our games we already have in development better?

I was very enamoured in that meeting , and I just remember sitting there having a bunch of ideas of what we could do with different things, and what kind of problems it solved with some games, or what opportunities it opened up.

I was also excited to have a third platform to make core games for. We haven't been making many Wii games in core. It really hasn't made sense for the last few years.

Then Brian Farrell [THQ CEO] said, 'I want to be there at launch this time. I don't want to come in late on this platform.' So we flew up the next week to Seattle and met with them. I took them through the first year of the launch of their Wii U and what we were making. They got really excited about what we were making. And then Darksiders II was a natural for it as a launch title because we were already tracking to around those time frames anyway. Metro is in there as well, and they wound up in the press conference. I thought we looked really good up there as far as quality goes.


Todd Hollenshead, co-owner and CEO, id Software:

Five year cycle for everybody, right? But apparently not any more. Nintendo is going inside the generation and there's no expectation that Microsoft or Sony are going to respond to this. That's unique, at least since I've been in the business since 1996.

Jason Leigh, Blue Castle Games co-founder and Off the Record executive producer, Capcom:

Touch-screen is here to stay. My kids are three and five years old. Even when my son was a year-and-a-half, he knew how to take the iPad and scroll to his apps and play his games. It's because it's so intuitive. It's no different than having a bunch of marbles on the table. It's something natural that people know how to bat them around and move them and shift them to where they need to go. It's cool they've integrated that.

Dave Grossman, design director, Telltale Games:

I saw a picture of it and it looked kind of big and weird but then I talked to someone who actually put their hands on it and they said, 'No, no, it's light and seems cool,' so... It's either genius, or it's crazy, or it's both. I don't know. I do like the idea of the touch-screen in the middle as that basically means you can reconfigure the controls of your game to be whatever you want. From a development standpoint that's pretty neat.

Hiroyuki Kobayashi, producer, Devil May Cry 4, Dragon's Dogma, Capcom:

It's hard to know how the market is going to react. I think the potential is there. The fact that we now have a high definition system from Nintendo means that developers are now going to be interested in putting out games for that system. How it's going to play out though is anyone's guess.

Michel Ancel, creator of Rayman and Beyond Good & Evil, Ubisoft:

I think it's really cool because I just see opportunities. New things to do, fewer constraints, more freedom to surprise the player. That's why we make games. We want to surprise gamers, to make them say, ah, I can do that now without hundreds of buttons. There's the touch-screen, I can maybe handle my inventory or have an alternative visual. But at the same time you still have the two analogues so you can still control the game the way you like. You have choices. I like this idea of choices.

Nintendo, for some time, was more like, 'We have one direction, follow us.' Now it's more, 'We have all these directions, do what you need to do.' Making games is hard – if you have too much constraint on top of making games it's much more difficult. I think there is a big ambition behind [the Wii U] and we will follow Nintendo to succeed in this because we have the feeling that it's the right direction.

David Jaffe, Twisted Metal director, Eat Sleep Play:

I've given up fortune-telling in this industry because this is a wonderful industry of constant disruption. Because of the internet and how you can direct-market to people who love exactly what you're doing, the whole industry has changed, whether you're talking about a free-to-play iPhone game or a $80 million PS3 exclusive. I just don't know what's going to hit me more. I don't think that you can do anything except look at something like the Vita or Wii U and appreciate the creativity and the passion.

In terms of 'is it going to be the next big thing', I don't know. I've been right a lot of times, I've been wrong a lot of times. I thought PSP was going to kick the crap out of the DS. The PSP did well but it didn't do anywhere near as well as the DS. When I first saw Ridge Racer on the PSP, I was like, 'Whoa, game over. If I was Nintendo I'd just go home.' And they proved me wrong a million times with that thing.

I never get excited about stuff like that. I get excited eventually over mechanics, but I get excited about the voice of the product first – the spirit, the essence of what it is - and then I kind of go, 'What out there exists that I can best communicate that with?' So I don't look at that and go, 'Oh my god, I have an idea for an adventure game.' I don't work that way as a designer. I start with more of a surface concept or emotion and then I drill down to where I can best present that emotion.

Yeah, I could probably do some really cool stuff with it. The same with Move, the same with Kinect. But I don't really care so much at the beginning. I care a lot about those things once you're going, 'That's the game we're making, this is the hardware that's going to make the game the best.' I don't start there so it's hard for me to think that way.

Greg Zeschuk, co-founder, BioWare:

Any time you have a new interface option that's really interesting to us. We obviously make games with a lot of depth. If there are ways we can improve upon how we deliver that and how we help players to experience it, that's interesting.

It's definitely something we'll look at. I would suspect we'll take a similar track as we took with Kinect, for example with Mass Effect 3. We'll look at it and see what Nintendo does with it. They'll always have the craziest, most innovative way to approach it. Then, we'll think about how we might possibly be able to use it and see if it makes sense.

Andrew Wilson, senior vice president of worldwide development, EA Sports:

We're always excited by about new platforms. It always presents a new challenge and a new way to deliver experiences to gamers. We don’t have a lot more information than everybody else does right now.

But we've made a commitment because what I see by having the new remote here and the screen is the opportunity for us to do things here that we would have done on a screen before. So this concept of cleaning up everything you see on the big screen and putting all that here [on the controller screen], is an interesting proposition.

We don't have that problem solved, but the opportunity to change the way you interact with a game based on moving everything from the HUD to here, is interesting.

The radar can go there. You could trigger wing play. You could play an offside trap here. There are a whole bunch of things you could do here that before, you had to remember a two-button combination or a d-pad combination, or you had to see it represented up on a screen, which meant if anyone else was watching they saw it.


We look at it and say, 'Wow, this is interesting.' We don't have a lot of information. We know it's high-def. We know it's got a great, new innovative controller. As game makers we say, 'OK, what can we do with that?' That's the thing that has jumped to our mind. Between now and when that launches, we'll be working diligently to make sure it adds value, that it's not a gimmick, but it truly adds value. As a FIFA gamer, if I could have touch-screen controls that said wing play, offside trap, push forward, pull back – all these things that no longer were assigned to a d-pad – I would feel pretty good about it.

I'm sure we're going to do more than that, but as the lowest common denominator, that would be pretty cool. That would change the way I play.

Ted Price, president and CEO, Insomniac Games:

The challenge for consumers, as always, is going to be, where do I spend my money? There are more and more choices now. That's all going to be driven by the killer applications. If you get that great game that's available for the Vita or the Wii U, then it should mean really good things for each platform.

It's exciting and intimidating at the same time. It's exciting because most of us at Insomniac are gadget geeks. We love shiny new toys. That's one of the reasons we were a launch title on the PS3 with Resistance, because it's an amazing platform and we really wanted to get on it.

Now, looking at all the other options, it's like being in a candy store. All these cool things you can do not only with your technology but with your design it's great.

On the other hand it's intimidating because there's only so much time in the day and so many resources we have to devote to developing for all the platforms. It's all about planning well, making sure the games we're designing are taking advantage of the platforms you choose in terms of their input devices and their capabilities.

But, overall, this demonstrates to me content creators today are in a really good position. If you can maximise the reach of your content through multiple platforms then you're reaching a broader audience and you have more opportunity to demonstrate the different twists on each of your franchises depending on the platform you're using.

John Carmack, co-founder, id Software:

It's a perfectly valid target for our id Tech 5 development platform. It's going to be very interesting to see what the marketing uptake of the Wii U is. If they're able to convert a lot of their existing Wii customers that are not hardcore gamers, that don't have the other consoles, then yeah, I'd certainly be interested in moving our technology over there.

Motion control can't be tacked on to a lot of different types of games. You need a game designed for motion control. While local touch-screen is something practically any game could derive some value out of.

 

[Koren]

Of course not, but his point remains that it's reasonable to assume that MS and Sony want to differentiate their hardware from Nintendo. Why? Because if they're unable to do that, they have to compete with Nintendo in only two ways: Online and 1st party efforts. The latter is a non-starter - they'd be decimated, and 3rd parties would shift towards Nintendo platforms since they're able to amass a greater audience and are more than capable of 3rd parties' content.

They never tried on Wii, which was a success. I kinda doubt that Wii U will have a similar kind of success, so I wouldn't make to much assumptions on 3rd party behavior.


That being said, I'd say that MS and Sony will indeed *want* differenciate themselves. But if they want to keep their price in control this time, it won't probably be easy to have an obvious visual difference to most people.

I used often the same argument, but I heard people arguing that it was easy to do Resident Evil Rebirth on PS2 in realtime rendering when they saw it on Gamecube. If normal players can't tell the difference between a pre-rendered background, that use radiosity (or similar) effects and real-time PS2 games... that says a lot.


That doesn't mean that, to me, it'll be easy for Wii U. Nintendo will have to struggle, and I can't say they always tried enough during the past years (I enjoyed Wii a lot, but I think that they could have done more with it)

 

[comedy bomb]

Sorry if already posted.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-27-what-developers-think-of-wii-u-article

posted already on the same page

 

[Nessus]

Power-wise, I'm thinking the Wii U will be in more of a Dreamcast compared to PS2/GameCube/Xbox position.

I'm not sure how much that will matter, though. I'm still wondering when we'll hit the budgetary ceiling.

There's only so much money and so much time that devs can justify spending on a game. To get the most out of the hardware, to get something like the Samaritan demo or better, you need to spend more time and budgets soar.

Look how many medium sized developers went out of business this generation after producing one flop. You're going to continue to see consolidation where only a few companies can afford to put out AAA titles that actually take full advantage of the hardware.

The market will diverge somewhat, I think, and you'll still have the huge blockbusters like Call Of Duty, but there will be a more noticeable gap between the companies who can afford to to risk throwing $50 million dollars at a game and those who simply can't.

And the feeling I'm getting is that the dedicated console market isn't going to get much bigger than it is right now, and will soon begin to shrink as mobile devices become more powerful and more ubiquitous, as physical media like DVD and Blu Ray, which served as excellent Trojan horses in past generations, become utterly irrelevant, and as even the old mainstay of the PC as a platform evaporates under pressure from ARM powered devices.

I realize it's not an entirely accurate comparison for a number of reasons, but remember when the guys making Final Fantasy Spirits Within boasted about how they took several months to make a chair?

For businesses that wish to remain profitable, there has to be a point at which it just doesn't make sense to spend so much money on what will likely become an increasingly niche market.

 

[AceBandage]

Power-wise, I'm thinking the Wii U will be in more of a Dreamcast compared to PS2/GameCube/Xbox position.

I'm not sure how much that will matter, though. I'm still wondering when we'll hit the budgetary ceiling.

There's only so much money and so much time that devs can justify spending on a game. To get the most out of the hardware, to get something like the Samaritan demo or better, you need to spend more time and budgets soar.

Look how many medium sized developers went out of business this generation after producing one flop. You're going to continue to see consolidation where only a few companies can afford to put out AAA titles that actually take full advantage of the hardware.

The market will diverge somewhat, I think, and you'll still have the huge blockbusters like Call Of Duty, but there will be a more noticeable gap between the companies who can afford to to risk throwing $50 million dollars at a game and those who simply can't.

And the feeling I'm getting is that the dedicated console market isn't going to get much bigger than it is right now, and will soon begin to shrink as mobile devices become more powerful and more ubiquitous, as physical media like DVD and Blu Ray, which served as excellent Trojan horses in past generations, become utterly irrelevant, and as even the old mainstay of the PC as a platform evaporates under pressure from ARM powered devices.

I realize it's not an entirely accurate comparison for a number of reasons, but remember when the guys making Final Fantasy Spirits Within boasted about how they took several months to make a chair?

For businesses that wish to remain profitable, there has to be a point at which it just doesn't make sense to spend so much money on what will likely become an increasingly niche market.

We already hit it. That's why we have so many yearly sequels.

 

[iamblades]

Okay, might not have. Either way, it's likely that they'll handle many things more efficiently, the most obvious being tessellation (assuming Nintendo doesn't replace the tess unit with a newer one). I really think that Nintendo would be better off using a Juniper chip, but that's just me. Who knows? Maybe they will in the end.

Spoiler

Even when I defend Wii U I get attacked by you guys. *sigh*

IIRC in terms of perf/transistor the 5000 series and 6000 series are actually downgrades from the 4000 series. They had improvements in perf/watt though, probably largely because of the die shrink.

In terms of feature set, there is nothing substantially new to the 5000 or 6000 series, aside from eyefinity anyway.

If using the R700 allows them to get more shaders on the chip or use higher clocks, i don't think they sacrifice a substantial amount for that.

 

[BurntPork]

IIRC in terms of perf/transistor the 5000 series and 6000 series are actually downgrades from the 4000 series. They had improvements in perf/watt though, probably largely because of the die shrink.

In terms of feature set, there is nothing substantially new to the 5000 or 6000 series, aside from eyefinity anyway.

If using the R700 allows them to get more shaders on the chip or use higher clocks, i don't think they sacrifice a substantial amount for that.

I guess we'll see. I just hope that Nintendo realizes how important tessellation may become next gen and replaces the tess unit with the one from Barts (if that's even possible).

 

[lednerg]

All that crap is nice rhetoric, bluh bluh bluh

I didn't post that article as some kind of argument or whatever. I did it because somebody asked; the site is blocked at their work.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

IIRC in terms of perf/transistor the 5000 series and 6000 series are actually downgrades from the 4000 series. They had improvements in perf/watt though, probably largely because of the die shrink.

In terms of feature set, there is nothing substantially new to the 5000 or 6000 series, aside from eyefinity anyway.

If using the R700 allows them to get more shaders on the chip or use higher clocks, i don't think they sacrifice a substantial amount for that.

Is eyefinity really necessary for dual monitor? I'm pretty darn sure that ATI chipsets before the 5000 allowed for dual head configurations.

 

[bgassassin]

I didn't post that article as some kind of argument or whatever. I did it because somebody asked; the site is blocked at their work.

I don't think he was shooting the messenger with that post.

 

[McHuj]

Is eyefinity really necessary for dual monitor? I'm pretty darn sure that ATI chipsets before the 5000 allowed for dual head configurations.

No it's not necesary at all. I had run a dual monitor system on my old 4770. Most cards do that. Eyefinity allowed for 3 to 6 monitors to run from one card.

 

[ZAK]

I disagree. The "hardcore" audience will gravitate toward them no matter what. It doesn't make any sense to spend more just to squeeze Nintendo out. It land them them in a situation where either the price is too high to be competitive, or the losses are ridiculous. In addition to that, each of them would have to assume that the other will do the same, because if only one of them does it, that one ends up wasting A LOT of money. No matter what they do, most gamers will choose their console based on games and online capabilities above all else. It would be more cost-effective and less risky to spend more on those than to try to put the Wii U into a Wii-type position, especially since, depending on how powerful the Wii U is, they might end up having to wait until 2015 to even come close to being able to do that, and then they look even more stupid because it'll probably take a year for that position to solidify, which gives Nintendo a chance to release a new console in 2017-18 to catch up and leave Sony and MS feeling like a bunch of jackasses. They have nothing to gain from spending more to do that. They're better off staying on they're current target and bragging about what power they have over Wii U, no matter how small, and using it as a cost-free selling point.

I don't see why the "hardcore" reaction is so obviously set in stone. You mention games and online. Well, online I can believe. Games? Which games? Certainly not first-party games. Nintendo wins on that one. So third-party games? Now there's an interesting question.

Maybe they will pump up the hardware again precisely for the purpose of attracting third party developers? I'm thinking that selling a new generation of hardware isn't really even about appealing to consumers; it's about appealing to developers. If you can get everyone to make all the new games only for the new hardware, then people will have to buy it. It's that simple. The exceptional case is where the first-party software can move the hardware all on its own and, again, not everyone's Nintendo. So, how does one appeal to the devs? Well, if GAF's taught me anything, it's that all those big important game developers lo-ooo-ove working on the fastest, sexiest, newest hardware. As such, a good bet to attract them towards yourself and away from a recently product-launched competitor is to make a significantly more powerful console.

 

[BurntPork]

I don't see why the "hardcore" reaction is so obviously set in stone. You mention games and online. Well, online I can believe. Games? Which games? Certainly not first-party games. Nintendo wins on that one. So third-party games? Now there's an interesting question.

Maybe they will pump up the hardware again precisely for the purpose of attracting third party developers? I'm thinking that selling a new generation of hardware isn't really even about appealing to consumers; it's about appealing to developers. If you can get everyone to make all the new games only for the new hardware, then people will have to buy it. It's that simple. The exceptional case is where the first-party software can move the hardware all on its own and, again, not everyone's Nintendo. So, how does one appeal to the devs? Well, if GAF's taught me anything, it's that all those big important game developers lo-ooo-ove working on the fastest, sexiest, newest hardware. As such, a good bet to attract them towards yourself and away from a recently product-launched competitor is to make a significantly more powerful console.

The games that they want. Nintendo could make a Mario game that gets a perfect score from every critc, but a Halo fan (assuming that this person isn't also a Mario fan) would still choose Halo 4 over it without hesitation, regardless of relative quality.

What developers want hasn't mattered for years. Now, it's about what publishers want, and most of the time they'll take the most profitable route. Trust me; the only way that Wii U will be abandoned is if both MS and Sony go all out, and I highly doubt that they'd do that just to beat Nintendo, or if the Wii U's increase over PS3 and XBox is negligible. If just one of them goes crazy, then they've wasted their time and money, since the only games to really take advantage of that power will be exclusives, and almost every single exclusive will be first-party. Since both MS and Sony are billions in the red (net loss since entering the market) as far as the gaming market goes, it would be in their best interests to avoid the disasters they faced for the first 2-3 years of this gen. Based on the Vita, I have a feeling that Sony knows that they need competitive pricing and to avoid excessive losses from now on, and I'm sure that MS's investors want to see XBox prove to be more than a money whole by the end of the next generation.

 

[watershed]

Of course not, but his point remains that it's reasonable to assume that MS and Sony want to differentiate their hardware from Nintendo. Why? Because if they're unable to do that, they have to compete with Nintendo in only two ways: Online and 1st party efforts. The latter is a non-starter - they'd be decimated, and 3rd parties would shift towards Nintendo platforms since they're able to amass a greater audience and are more than capable of 3rd parties' content. That leaves online - which is where MS will always attempt to rule and will spend ridiculous sums of money in order to do so. [As I said before: I doubt Nintendo or Sony will come anywhere close in their online solutions to what MS will do.]

I don't believe for a second that either MS or Sony will hold back on hardware power and features unless they know for a fact what Nintendo is doing online. Otherwise, they will want to hit near one another but as far out from Nintendo as possible in order to make the difference as notable as possible (even if it's nowhere near a Wii to 360 gap).

They will do everything in their power, combined power if necessary, to keep it from ever reaching a 1st party battle that determines the fate of a console race.

I absolutely agree with you that Sony and Microsoft will want to differentiate their products from the wii u as much as possible but I don't think graphics is the area where they will do that. I too think the next Sony and Microsoft consoles will have better graphical capabilities than the wii u but I don't think it will be the main differential.

For both I think they will continue to push their consoles as an all purpose media hub, movies in disc form, streaming movies, music, sports, tv services, etc like we are already seeing with the 360 and PS3. I feel this is a very valuable proposition for getting their consoles to be the center of the living room entertainment set up and will probably be different from the wii u which looks to not even play dvds or blurays.

But the most up front differentiator will be the UI and control methods. Microsoft will probably continue with an improved kinect that uses more intricate gesture recognition with better voice and object recognition as well. I think Microsoft will also look to better merge traditional controls be it the controller or a remote with the kinect.

I can't really imagine what Sony's UI or control hook will be as I personally hope they drop move (for some reason I really don't enjoy it). In a strange way I could see all 3 console makers using some kind of tablet screen hardware tied to the system, I think the wii u already shows how useful such a feature can be. But with Sony's business strategy I see them using a better mix of existing tech, a mass market advertising angle (more like the Vita strategy and less burning baby dolls and cut off thumbs), and a lower price point. The Vita has a very aggressive price and I could see Sony trying to position the PS4 in the middle of the pack price-wise especially if Nintendo messes up and prices the wii u high like they did the 3ds.

As for your idea that Sony and Microsoft are watching Nintendo's online carefully I don't share the same belief. I think most gamers, developers, and competitors, Sony and Microsoft included, trust in Nintendo's online incompetence. Nothing we are hearing makes me believe Nintendo will be able to execute a compelling online system that will at once alleviate the concerns of developers and function as a high value selling point to consumers. I just don't think Nintendo will do online right.

 

[topramen]

What are the chances of Wii U appearing at Gamescom? TGS?

Or are we looking at the Octoberton as our best chance for new info

 

[antonz]

What are the chances of Wii U appearing at Gamescom? TGS?

Or are we looking at the Octoberton as our best chance for new info

It is really hard to say. Nintendo reserved a ton of space at some huge convention thing in Australia this fall etc.

They could do a gradual roll out of into at various events

 

[Luigiv]

What are the chances of Wii U appearing at Gamescom? TGS?

Or are we looking at the Octoberton as our best chance for new info

It could be at Gamescom, though all we'd get would be the exact same showing we got at E3.

It is really hard to say. Nintendo reserved a ton of space at some huge convention thing in Australia this spring etc.

They could do a gradual roll out of into at various events

Fixed.

 

[lwilliams3]

As for your idea that Sony and Microsoft are watching Nintendo's online carefully I don't share the same belief. I think most gamers, developers, and competitors, Sony and Microsoft included, trust in Nintendo's online incompetence. Nothing we are hearing makes me believe Nintendo will be able to execute a compelling online system that will at once alleviate the concerns of developers and function as a high value selling point to consumers. I just don't think Nintendo will do online right.

Interestingly enough, third-parties that has discussed Nintendo's plans for Wii U appears to actually be optimistic. Guess we will see soon enough.

 

[watershed]

Interestingly enough, third-parties that has discussed Nintendo's plans for Wii U appears to actually be optimistic. Guess we will see soon enough.

You see the difference between your reading of those quotes and mine is that I put absolutely zero stock in them. I'm sure the wii u's online will be improved over the wii and 3ds but I still don't think it will match modern standards or not feature some obvious, should have been fixed, crippling flaw. Some of the online stuff on the 3ds is just baffling despite also being a marked improvement over the ds and wii.

 

[antonz]

I wouldnt mind the seemingly PC style online system they are going for if they are at least smart enough to have some sort of basic unified system for the console