GameplayWhore
Member
Oh, hey, is NPD tomorrow? We'll get to see if the "third place Xenoblade" report was correct then.
Oh, hey, is NPD tomorrow? We'll get to see if the "third place Xenoblade" report was correct then.
And I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm not suggesting that 3rd parties should have shifted all of their efforts to the Wii. What I am arguing, and have always argued on this matter, is that they had franchises that either disappeared this generation or were not able to financially make the transition to the HD twins. [They simply weren't big enough titles, though they had devoted audiences.] In essence, they should have really considered what they had in their library of franchises and titles, and made sound economic decisions about which belonged in the AAA fast-lane (the Blockbuster success or die!) realm - and which didn't. Those that didn't? Shift them to the Wii. Keep the mid-tier games alive, not go into this absurd polarity that results in 'Go Big or Go Home!' thinking.
I hope that's not all they're thinking. I am hoping they moneyhat or team up with third parties for a few exclusive games. I want to see this happen this gen.
Console game publishers failing horribly at business? Surely not!
With luck we will be seeing ports of nearly every major upcoming multiplatform game announced at E3. Despite the bad signs, it would be wrong to write this possibility off while everything is still under NDA.
They are already moneyhatting for exclusives.
Look at Monster Hunter 3G at 3DS for example.
Also, I'm pretty sure Nintendo threw money at Square Enix for Dragon Quest X on Wii U due to DQ's popularity in Japan.
Nintendo will moneyhat for 3rd exclusives. The problem is they might be too cheap to moneyhat for the third party exclusives that western gamers really want.
No, their thinking is "If we get third party ports, then the only difference between the consoles is first party software, which we have already won."
Let's get it straight here: the ultimate goal that I think a lot of hardcore console gamers want is a single platform on which they can play Mario, Zelda, and Metroid along with Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. That's the dream: to get people on the console with the new 2D Mario or Wii game phenomenon and make them stay for the third party games in-between.
I think that this line of thinking greatly exaggerates the degree of overlap between the Mario/Metroid/Zelda audience and the CoD/GTA audience; while not a perfect comparison, the performance of multiplatform titles on GC supports my point.
If Nintendo is at all serious about making a major play for the current HD core market, I'd say they would be making a huge mistake by assuming that established first-party IP will do that much to sell the system to that market.
Oh, hey, is NPD tomorrow? We'll get to see if the "third place Xenoblade" report was correct then.
The PS2 kind of invalidates that entire generation from my perspective when it comes to seeking out sales data. It was like this black hole that appeared and sort of sucked the life out of everything else available.
Their 1st party titles won't work. All they need to show is that gamers can get their 1st party titles and a healthy coverage of 3rd party titles. There may not be a huge amount of overlap, but I also don't think that is the end of the equation for determining which console gets purchased and which doesn't. If Nintendo can get the same games from 3rd parties that MS and Sony get, that's a huge win for them.
And Ubisoft seem to be continuing this trend by going all-in with Wii U support, even going as far as to create an exclusive game built around its functionality.They do and don't at the same time. What EA, Activision, and Ubisoft were trying to do was drown out competition by raising the stakes so damn high that only they could perform at that level. Only problem is, they got caught into this whirlpool that kept pulling them further in. In essence, they polarized the market too much. Activision has done well due to its genre kings, but EA has especially taken hits. Ubisoft is actually intelligent enough to have created titles for handhelds, the Wii, and otherwise, which gave them a bit more flexibility from a costs perspective.
I'm imagining Konami investors (and execs, for that matter) wondering why the hell they're funding a Vita version of Project Ogre but not a Wii U version.Basically, I want publishers to make smart decisions. E3 will be a good test for seeing which ones 'get it' and which ones don't, because Mickey Mouse excuses about 'the controller is too different' and such are not going to appease investors forever - especially if the Wii U hits big.
Indeed, and yet I think it's going to take a hell of a lot for Nintendo to reconsider their level of dependence on their stable of established IP. Even if they throw a lot of money at a core-focused new IP from Retro, I think their Wii U output will ultimately lean too heavily on the franchises that pushed the DS and Wii.If Nintendo is at all serious about making a major play for the current HD core market, I'd say they would be making a huge mistake by assuming that established first-party IP will do that much to sell the system to that market.
I know it's been a year since I started having this argument with you, but the fact is that Wii U is launching seven years after 360 and six years after PS3. The overwhelming majority of the potential audience for HD multiplatform titles already owns another platform that can play them, which means that Nintendo will need significant exclusive content specifically aimed at that audience in order to sell the system to them.
One thing that must be complicated for developers: if a game use the touch screen as an input method, how are they going to replace it when the game goes into "full portable mode"?
I'm talking versus PS4 and 720, not the 360 and PS3. I mean, yeah... games from the remainder of this generation is nice, but they need to get the same games from the coming generation as well on the damn thing.
So when will we know that Wii U will indeed run UE4 or not? It's not like they're going to announce that at their press conference.
I think it could happen by way of tech demo or one of the epic people coming out. Or it could be at the roundtable afterward. So yeah I'd say right now best guess is E3.So when will we know that Wii U will indeed run UE4 or not? It's not like they're going to announce that at their press conference.
Probably not unless it leaks, right? Because of the way NPD's reported now?
Which I guess it will probably leak.
So when will we know that Wii U will indeed run UE4 or not? It's not like they're going to announce that at their press conference.
By the time those come out people would rather jump on those consoles rather than Wii U. Nintendo needs to do whatever they can to make sure those people jump onto the Wii U first. Like everyone else was saying, first party and ports aren't going to cut it.
Im stilling waiting to read some speculations what Nintendo would have had to do
to run UE4? Im trying to gage how far off their original target was for the system.
Was it simply a matter of adding extra ram? Some small tweaks? Or did they have to go with plan b, and start from scratch?
.
One thing that must be complicated for developers: if a game use the touch screen as an input method, how are they going to replace it when the game goes into "full portable mode"?
I'm not disagreeing that Nintendo needs to get people to jump onboard fast. What I'm saying is that placing gamers within a vacuum and pretending there are no other factors to their purchasing decisions is crazy. If there is a game that would appeal to your family on the Wii U, your potential for purchasing it goes up; if 3rd parties appear to be pursuing Wii U development meaningfully, both with games from this generation and the next, then your purchase potential goes up that much higher.
The vast majority of customers may only have one console, but that's not true of gamers - and especially not of GAF members.
So let's not put everything about purchases into a nice, little box.
link, because that's not what rumours seem to be pointing at...So it happened, Sony was brave enough to develop another shit insane monster console.
We still get the top 10.Probably not unless it leaks, right? Because of the way NPD's reported now?
Which I guess it will probably leak.
We still get the top 10.
link, because that's not what rumours seem to be pointing at...
I'm talking versus PS4 and 720, not the 360 and PS3. I mean, yeah... games from the remainder of this generation is nice, but they need to get the same games from the coming generation as well on the damn thing.
EDIT: What I'm stating is that gamers have families. Those families may want Nintendo games, while the primary gamer wants 3rd party titles. This will likely factor into decisions made about what console to purchase and what not to. Nintendo having time to themselves with the Wii U on the market is potentially very helpful for bringing that decision about.
EatChildren
Oh my.So it happened, Sony was brave enough to develop another shit insane monster console.
EatChildren first needs to be verified by a mod before you can trust him
Same here. Might be a false alarm. :/Can someone link me, where did he say this. I must be missing something.
I remember those comments.. but I never associated those with a "monster" console.BG who said he factually knows the target specs for the PS4 already laid them out and they are a good leap, but not hugely far off from the wiiU.
In this thread I don't see EC mentioning the PS4...
So it happened, Sony was brave enough to develop another shit insane monster console.
yeah the BG target specs noted a generational leap over the current gen, but only 1.5-2x better than the wiiU in general terms, it looked like. So plenty better than the wiiU but still the same ballpark, whereas this gen it was a different sportI remember those comments.. but I never associated those with a "monster" console.
Bg said this about ps4 as well. He pretty much said that Sony has found a way to make a relatively powerful console at a not too expensive price.
I'm still going to lean more towards 2x at minimum for PS4, but at least now you have the context behind why I've said what I've said. And why Wii U's GPU will be key in determining how big the gap will be.
EatChildren
Not really. The rumored GPU is an underclocked 7850, which is very reasonable. The CPU rumors are even a bit modest.So it happened, Sony was brave enough to develop another shit insane monster console.
Eh, there were most assuredly more powerful 8-bit systems which make the NES an example - the Master System comes to mind. Better graphics (more than 3 colors per sprite, notably), but couldn't possibly hope to touch the NES in sales or brand recognition.To Sony, a $500+ initial per-unit cost of reproduction is probably "not too expensive".
Can't they quite realize that their systems that dominated the market did so in part because they weren't amazingly expensive? PSX and PS2 both ceilinged* out at under $300. The most powerful system almost never wins the generation and usually in fact flounders badly. The only counterexample I can think of is the NES, and that's pretty debatable.
* my browser did not flag this as a misspelling. I was genuinely surprised.