Wii U Speculation Thread of Brains Beware: Wii U Re-Unveiling At E3 2012
- Thread starter bgassassin
- Start date
- Status
Dash Kappei
Not actually that important
....AAAaaand there you go, days count resets to zero!BurntPork said:
Father_Brain
Banned
ShockingAlberto said:
I would bet that you're wrong, and I'm pretty damn pessimistic about how Wii U will ultimately fare on the Western third-party front.
I might agree with that if you were referring strictly to western publishers. Although, I don't completely rule out some quick ports. However, we've heard very little out of Japan concerning the WiiU and E3 wouldn't really be their time to announce that sort of thing anyway. A Capcom port is obligatory and with a late 2012 release, I expect SE to have a port of Tomb Raider as well.ShockingAlberto said:
Grampa Simpson
Banned
Is your reasonable switched off?ShockingAlberto said:
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
TunaLover said:
The anti-Nintendo bias is a myth propagated by deluded Nintendo fanboys unable or unwilling to look at the bigger picture of the market, hardware and work required to develop video games.
EatChildren said:
Exactly. I think is more related to the tools Nintendo gives to the development teams. We must remember that before E3 a lot of them were saying things like "they really did it well this time" "Nintendo was like "follow us" but now is more like "we 'll help you""
I think developers and particularly publishers realize the more systems they can bring their products to, the more potential sales. I also think deep down inside, many developers and publishers realize they failed to capitalize on the Wii craze early on.
Will the WiiU be another Wii? Possibly. But irregardless, its being supported by a company that has been in the console business for a long time. A company with enough capital to market the WiiU internationally.
So, I would be very surprised if western developers, with dev kits, are not preparing to launch a game in the first year of this console's lifespan. Whether its a port, or an exclusive title.
Will the WiiU be another Wii? Possibly. But irregardless, its being supported by a company that has been in the console business for a long time. A company with enough capital to market the WiiU internationally.
So, I would be very surprised if western developers, with dev kits, are not preparing to launch a game in the first year of this console's lifespan. Whether its a port, or an exclusive title.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
TunaLover said:
I think you're both staying at the extreme opposites of this argument.EatChildren said:
While the anti-nintendo conspiracy among developers could be largely a product of platform fans' imagination (often helped by bad gaming journalism - press loves drama), bad business decisions are a fact of life in this industry. As a result of such decisions games that could've brought money to their makers on nintendo platforms were not made, with all consequences to said makers. Whether a bad business decision is made out of 'irrational hate' or plain ol stupidity ('lack of business acumen', as they say), the outcome is exactly the same.
EatChildren said:
I'm sure more often than not you're correct, but there are a few incidents that the only explanation left is some kind of nascent grudge against Nintendo. That or sheer stupidity. Like for instance, Namco USA's inexplicable ignorance regarding the Tales series for the last 3 years, electing to not localize 3 mainline DS games and a Wii game in favor of three PSP spinoffs that nobody bought (at least not here.) and a PS3 port of said Wii game. Regardless of the actual explanation, it certainly looks like partiality.
And appearance is the thing. For some reason, a simple reason regarding the Wii itself is used to explain why no third party games sell on it (i.e. "there be casuals" or "Nintendo fanboys") is acceptable and conventional wisdom but a simplistic reason why third parties won't make games on the Wii ("they're biased") is unacceptable. It's obviously more complex than that on both sides but complex reasons why third party games struggle on Wii are simply not countenanced, even when the missteps could fill a book (Full-priced products competing against a game that comes free with the system, baffling marketing strategies, preconceived notion that the aforementioned "casual gamers" don't care about quality, etc.)
One thing that was suspicious as far as I was concerned was the explanation for not supporting Nintendo's console changed from last gen to this one. Last gen it was easy. Userbase size. That was simply all they had to say. Userbase size. It was a bitter pill for a Nintendo fan to swallow, and there was some discussion about third parties seemingly denying their own hand in creating the szie of the userbase, but it was logical and sound business sense. But this gen all of a sudden Userbase size is out the window and is replaced by strange new words like "software ecosystems" and "demographics" and "recombinant gamer metrics" and "entertainment dynamics," Points if you can guess which term I made up.
This signaled a shift in the discussion of their development decisions (and by "they" I mean the general collective attitudes of 3rd party publishers in general.) Before they used their decisions to explain why their business acumen made sense. Now they use business terms to explain why their decisions make sense. It's different to say "We believe that making software for the market leader is the best strategy and therefore we put most if not all of our games on the market leader, regardless of what they are or whether they "fit," than it is to say "Our decision to put Title X on Platform Y makes sense because [marketing terms.]"
I'm not saying that 3rd parties are intensely biased against Nintendo now, but they probably were in late 2005/2006 for purely market based reasons and got caught flatfooted when the Wii exploded. Their reaction to the Wii's explosion was where they screwed up, not the "bias" based on market realities before hand. And that reaction was inept for the most part, making some truly awful games and wondering why nobody buys anything but Nintendo games as a consequence.
NinjaTehFish
Banned
Nintendo is just unwilling (at least historically) to spend the cash on on exclusives (timed or otherwise).*
The way i see it, Nintendo just don't see it as their responsibility to hand-hold and money-hat what are meant to be independent content providers.
On the other side of that coin AAA HD games in the console space have become somewhat dependent on subsidized development.
Edit:
*And the notable time they did re: Capcom on GC it didn't really work out.
The way i see it, Nintendo just don't see it as their responsibility to hand-hold and money-hat what are meant to be independent content providers.
On the other side of that coin AAA HD games in the console space have become somewhat dependent on subsidized development.
Edit:
*And the notable time they did re: Capcom on GC it didn't really work out.
Nuclear Muffin
Banned
NinjaTehFish said:
Isn't stopping them from buying more exclusives from Capcom (Monster Hunter) Iwata has already gone on record to state that he is willing to invest in 3rd party support if it is necessary.
That being said, I do think that a grudge/hatred does exist to some extent, at least amongst certain developers (Rockstar North with Body Harvest, Epic with Nintendo's game design philosophies flying in the face of their own beliefs etc)
There was absolutely no good reason why the GCN couldn't have gotten the GTA games (and no, disc space wasn't the issue. GTA 3 and Vice City were sub 1.5GB on XBOX, while SA could've had multiple discs, split across the islands for voices. Neither was the userbase size, with the GCN userbase being roughly the same as the XBOX), no good reason why the 3DS shouldn't get GTA 3 Anniversary edition and no good reason why the Wii couldn't have gotten ports of the PS2/XBOX GTA games. It all comes back to Body Harvest.
And with Epic, there's no good reason why UE3 mobile can't run on 3DS (don't give me that bullshit about the 3DS lacking programmable shaders. That didn't stop Capcom from porting over MT Framework to 3DS with spectacular results) and no good reason why they have been shy to announce an official version of UE3/UE4 for Wii U (unless they're not planning to support it officially as I predict, leaving developers to port it themselves, like how they ported UE2.5 onto Wii)
But certainly, it is not a catch all answer for the lack of 3rd party support. The lack of system horsepower is a good reason for not wanting to support the system (even if it is just out of developer snobbery or brand protection)
EatChildren said:
While I agree from a business decision standpoint, I do have to say that I've encountered something which at least *felt* like said bias from people within the industry first-hand.
I don't believe it's affected any actual decisions which were made, but there was very noticeable ignorance and prejudice among some people.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Biases against this or that console maker happen, and it is not something nintendo-exclusive. I've seen people frown at the mere mention of 'Sony' and 'console' in the same sentence. It all depends on their momentary mood, what hurdles their past experiences served them, etc. People in the industry are only human.mclem said:
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
blu said:
This is what I was getting at, and you put it more eloquently than I did (in both points).
Said 'bias' exist on a personal level and effects all of the hardware manufacturers. On a business level there exists very little, if any bias at all. Stupid decisions can be a result of a bias, or just plain human error, and often times what seems like a 'bias' can be validated by a person's development history relative to the platform their bias against.
Its like all the people pointing fingers at third parties for the lack of ports to the Wii and accusing them of a Nintendo bias. Or third parties shrugging off the Wii's early success. Calling out a Nintendo bias is such a cheap way to excuse legitimate problems and human error.
Nuclear Muffin said:
The 3DS has shitty processing power that likely is the reason UE3 does not exist on the system, or would be extremely difficult to make. They have no reason to announce an 'official' version of UE3 for the Wii U, just like they haven't for the PS3.
It's this kind of black-and-white Nintendo bias rubbish that stinks of stupid.
Jaded Alyx said:
Dash Kappei said:....AAAaaand there you go, days count resets to zero!
You're both lying. ;-; It's true!
Not to mention the fact that two UE3 games are being made for Wii U already, so it's obviously being licensed for use on Wii U. And Epic's comments have indirectly said it anyway.EatChildren said:
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
BurntPork said:
Exactly. Not to mention if we're going to point fingers and argue bias for UE3 then it's clear Sony comes off the worse. UE3 is notorious for looking and running like junk on the PS3, especially for early games. Hell late generation games like Bulletstorm were still missing some effects on the PS3.
From interviews with Cliffy B and other Epic guys around E3 it seems like it was once again Gearbox who did the port, though - not Epic. Epic seemingly plans to officially support the platform, but unlike Crytek, they haven't confirmed anything yet, other than that the engine obviously has to work on the system considering it runs Aliens.EatChildren said:
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Deguello said:
The iPhone 3GS has more main memory, a more powerful CPU and a GPU that supports features the 3DS does not. It's not hard to believe that it can run stuff the 3DS can't.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
I assume that by hard he's referring to officially announced specs.lherre said:
As re UE3's 'official' support for this or that platform, let's not even go there (and oh, android will be a sight to behold). UE (early) licensees have done way more work on getting the engine/toolchain run on different platforms, than Epic ever did. Ever heard of Silicon Knights' dispute with Epic?*
* which was highly ironical in itself, given how Denis would gospel how the 'new generation of Hollywood-style game development based on all-powerful next-gen pipelines tailored around HD next gen platforms' would turn this industry around only a couple of years before that. It did turn the industry around, alright.
ThoseDeafMutes said:
I don't know about that. I'm comparing the Pica200 in the 3DS vs. the PowerVR SGX 535 (or whatever the hell's in the 3GS) and I'm not seeing where the PowerVR GPU blows it away. 3GS has about twice the RAM, but the 3GS is a smartphone with many different functions vs. a dedicated game player. Also, when I compare GPUs I see the PICA 200 come out on top in several things.
Maybe it's the CPU? I'm just not seeing it.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
Infinity Blade uses 112MB ram, which isn't far off from the 96MB that 3DS games have access to.ThoseDeafMutes said:
Memory's not the issue, it's that 3DS uses a fixed pipeline GPU, and that's a standard Epic chooses not to support.
AzaK said:
GTA V on the Wii U is necessary if Nintendo is serious about their claim to wanting it to be a system for the "hardcore". I honestly don't see it making a difference in changing most people's perception that Nintendo's consoles skew towards children and older, "casual" gamers.
Regardless - we still don't know which system(s) GTA V will launch on, or even when it will be released.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Fixed pipeline means non-programmable/limited programmability vertex and pixel functionality*.nickcv said:
Shader pipeline means programmable vertex and pixel shaders**.
Unified Shader pipeline means a shader pipeline that uses the same units to handle both pixel and fragment shaders***.
PICA200 is actually a hybrid pipeline - SM2 / ARB_vertex_program vertex shaders + TEV-like pixel shading (alas more feature-rich).
* Though historically, some 'fixed pipeline' architectures have been almost on-par programmability-wise with some of the early shader architectures. See Flipper TEV stages vis-a-vis pixel shaders up to Shader Model (SM) 1.3.
** A reasonable baseline programmable model nowadays is considered Shader Model 2.0 (in D3D nomenclature) / ARB_vertex/fragment_program (in OGL nomenclature).
*** Though that sounds more like something to do with the silicon implementation, it actually affects the programmability of the pipeline - e.g. non-unified shader pipelines tend not to support vertex texturing.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
rhoq said:
Nintendo will do just fine getting ports of major games on the condition that the console is selling well and is easy to develop for. If rumours are correct the hardware architecture makes for a similar development environment to that of the Xbox 360, so I can imagine porting titles between the two consoles will be quite easy. This was probably intention, as the prime reason the Wii fell behind in third party ports was because of the shitty hardware.
A lot of developers will be wary though, especially early on, and rightfully so, as porting their games will require licencing a devkit, man hours and money porting the engine and content (either internally and farmed off), and publishing costs to release. End of the day the Wii U will still be a new console with a much, much smaller market penetration than the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, which will ironically be the system's strongest competitions. Some pubs/devs will feel that releasing on the system early in its life isn't worth it, and they'd have a good case (unless it explodes out of the gate).
Hypothetically though, if the Wii U performs very, very well, and the hardware is as rumoured, we'll probably see a lot of ports of a lot of major games.
EatChildren said:
I don't think there is much of a chance of the Wii U "exploding out the gate", to be honest. It will have a higher price tag than what is acceptable to the non-hardcore groups, and does not have a controller that will create as much of a paradigm shift as the wiimote (a dual-analog controller attached to a tablet).
With that said, I think the Wii U will get most ports (eventually, at the very least) simply as the result of the skyrocketing cost of developing games and the relatively small cost-benefit ratio of porting these expensive games. This under the condition that it's not a kluge to develop for, like the PS3 was. To top it off, no matter how much more powerful the PS4 and Loop are - there are no massive architectural shifts happening any year soon in regards to CPU/GPU hardware that will disclude the Wii U in any potential development pipeline - should developers not choose to ignore it.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
That too is a good reason it will get some ports. It will be a relatively cheap and easy way for developers to cash in on launch hype surrounding a system, and get some games out there when early adopters are hungry for stuff to play.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
TunaLover said:
Most likely, but only because Nintendo gave the impression they were in development thanks to that sizzle reel. As far as I'm aware the Battlefield team confirmed they were not working on a Wii U port of BF3 at this time, and last Randy Pitchford said of Colonial Marines was that they had an R&D group looking at options.
If porting over goes well from PS360 to Wii U then during launch window we are bound to see plenty of third party support for the Wii U. From that point forward is where things may go wrong depending on the performance of those titles.
The truth is that Nintendo's digital download infrastructure is more important for game developers and publishers and where the challenge of support lies.
The truth is that Nintendo's digital download infrastructure is more important for game developers and publishers and where the challenge of support lies.
I just found this article on google news.
http://www.develop-online.net/news/39077/Nintendo-working-on-Wii-U-support-for-two-tablets
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
ReyVGM said:
The one thing I've learned over the years is that for some reason, some developers really really HATE Nintendo. Maybe it's because Nintendo games sell so much more on their consoles, or maybe they just hate plumbers, idk.
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
StevieP said:
WTF IS THIS SHIT?!?!?!?!?
bdizzle said:
*looks down*
Yep, page 211. And multiple UPads is what a lot of us have wanted since last e3. The only thing better would be confirmation of a wiimote in the box, so we can rest assured that IR pointing isn't dead.
That Zelda is using a gyro pointer like Move (sigh
) is not a good sign on that front.
bdizzle said:
when you realize that more than half of Nintendo's time in the console business has been like this, not getting support seems to be the standard.
only the NES and SNES had massive 3rd party support. that vs all their following consoles and handhelds looks small in comparison.
airmangataosenai
Member
Yeah, that's exactly why. It's all just spite.bdizzle said:
m.i.s.
Banned
uchihasasuke said:
There was no [MS or Sony] alternative during the S/NES years though.
This topic has been dealt with extensively though; and with the Gaf heavyweight Opiate concluding that Nintendo's 3rd party woes are ultimately irreconcilable. That doesn't mean Nintendo can't do anything about it though and one of the things they are doing is forming key partnerships in areas where their are gaps in Nintendo's library.
- Status