General Nintendo sales/business discussion topic (previously: The Wii U Thread)

[Conando]

Then I just don't understand why the hell you even started this argument. I said bare minimum effort now, but when did anyone else even use such words. Their "righteous indignation" is just over EA bothering for every single thing except Wii U. Yes, it might not be as easy as I might believe, but it can't be THAT difficult. Mobile hardware works entirely different from the standard PC hardware that all consoles run on, and yet they did it for that. It's really the same type of thing with how Capcom got the MT Framework engine to work on 3DS despite its significantly different hardware from what it was designed for. Even if these processors are as great as you say, they do things in a completely different way from the PowerPC processors all 3 consoles have right now, and the x86 ones that are already in PCs, and coming in the PS4 and Durango. The Wii U's GPGPU is somewhat of a reverse PS3, in that it can handle CPU functions too. They CAN work it if they try, it's just a different thing from what they're used to. And if a different team handled the downscaling and modification of Frostbite Go, why can't they get another team with GPGPU knowhow to help DICE with programming that's becoming increasingly important?

 

Edit: Also, the quote from DICE kind of makes it sound like they made no effort. I mean, they said they tried running it and it didn't run as the preferred with a straight conversion. They said they just dropped it, they basically said the made zero effort. They don't want to program for the Wii U because, it's different from what they're used to.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[Tornado]

Then I just don't understand why the hell you even started this argument.

Because it's getting pretty annoying that every time EA so much as sneezes it's the result of a hexagonal conspiracy against the Wii U. DICE (among other developers) says that they tried to get their engine to work on the Wii U, and it didn't work well enough to make it worth pursuing it (nevermind the new one); so clearly this is part of the greater EA/Nintendo grudge match that forced Crysis to be kept off the system. EA refers to the Wii U as being constrained in ways more similar to the PS360 than the next system, and even refers to it as last gen as opposed to the PS360 successors; and even though it is that's just another mean-spirited snub. EA commits to getting said engine they couldn't get working on the Wii U to work on modern mobile architecture that in all likelihood does not suffer from the same setbacks as the Wii U in terms of power (and is a shitload more widespread in use, and is about to be joined by what could be an insanely popular attempt to make a legitimate gaming machine out of such hardware); and it's further proof of EA's hypocrisy.

 

Then after all of the blatant misconceptions are cleared up, and things are explained to not automatically be the way that they appear, this thread dies for a week or so until something else happens. Then all of those misconceptions that were explained to not be as they appeared are suddenly all instantly valid again. What do you mean why did I start this argument? The better question is why were the same arguments from last week being repeated near verbatim again despite the things that were said last week not being any less true a week later?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Couldn't it maybe, just maybe, be that EA doesn't want to have its developers take time to rewrite a game engine that they are about to replace anyway to see if it can even work on one system that is selling like shit and has an install base that generally doesn't buy their games even when they don't send them out to die on purpose? Couldn't it just maybe be that DICE was telling the truth, and that the system isn't feasible for easy and direct ports? Couldn't it just maybe be that a spade is a spade and the Wii U's CPU is shitty enough (being the 3 core version of the Wii one at a higher clock rate that we know it is) that they can't port titles simply and efficiently like they can to other systems, and either the install base is low enough or the system is weak enough that they don't even want to try dumping absolute shit ports like third parties continue to do this day on the PS3?

EA is hardly a saint in all this, but why the hell does none of the blame fall on Nintendo for designing the system the way they did in the first place when EA isn't the only one who's complained about it?

 

I said bare minimum effort now, but when did anyone else even use such words.

Every time the issue comes up.

 

Yes, it might not be as easy as I might believe, but it can't be THAT difficult. Mobile hardware works entirely different from the standard PC hardware that all consoles run on, and yet they did it for that. It's really the same type of thing with how Capcom got the MT Framework engine to work on 3DS despite its significantly different hardware from what it was designed for. Even if these processors are as great as you say, they do things in a completely different way from the PowerPC processors all 3 consoles have right now, and the x86 ones that are already in PCs, and coming in the PS4 and Durango.

"Different" was never the issue. They haven't written game engines in assembly for nearly 20 years.

 

The Wii U's GPGPU is somewhat of a reverse PS3, in that it can handle CPU functions too. They CAN work it if they try, it's just a different thing from what they're used to. And if a different team handled the downscaling and modification of Frostbite Go, why can't they get another team with GPGPU knowhow to help DICE with programming that's becoming increasingly important?

Because one of those things is porting the engine to different hardware; which isn't too big of a deal since they almost certainly designed it to be as modular as possible to begin with. It's why the Unreal engine was on everything from the Dreamcast to the PS3.

The other one of those things would require rewriting the game engine to get acceptable performance from it on a certain system. If they wrote Frostbite to rely on the CPU for most things, they can't just make those tasks go to the GPU instead. Sony went out of their way to cripple the PS3's original, theoretically more powerful design so developers wouldn't have to do that, and the thing was still a mess.

 

Edit: Also, the quote from DICE kind of makes it sound like they made no effort. I mean, they said they tried running it and it didn't run as the preferred with a straight conversion. They said they just dropped it, they basically said the made zero effort. They don't want to program for the Wii U because, it's different from what they're used to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

 

You shouldn't even be joking about being able to gleam that much behind the scenes information from that interview; nevermind using it as proof of what DICE did in their attempt to get it running on the system.

[Scar]

Smartphones and tablets are already far more powerful than the Wii, and in a year or so, will be more powerful than the PS360 (they are 6-7 years old now, so this makes sense). 

 

In any case, this is a tangential discussion anyway.

[Conando]

The blame probably doesn't fall on Nintendo due to EA never having a good relationship with Nintendo. It's a different excuse each generation, so people are tired of it. That's not to say Nintendo didn't put the Wii U together kind of stupidly (in terms of compatibility), because they kind of did. Most engines ARE GPU intensive though, so I can't entirely blame them for thinking they'd be fine with making a GPU that can handle almost every thing with a weaker CPU attached as support. It could have to do with backwards compatibility too for, all I know. I find it hard to believe you can't understand why people are automatically pointing the finger at EA, though. At least in regards to Nintendo, the only Nintendo consoles they sort of supported were N64 and Gamecube. EA HAD to have known the Wii U was designed like this, and yet they still spouted bullshit about a "unprecedented relationship". They even freakin' said they had Battlefield on Wii U in 2011/2012. They were willing to make the effort before, but something happened that caused it not to. Like you said, it could be due to the Nintendo audience not rightly caring for EA, but that's also speculation. Nintendo isn't fully free of the blame (at least for me), but EA is doing itself no favors with their behavior. That's why they have the Lion's share of the blame.

 

Edit: Oh, no wait. Was it E3 2012? I got it mixed up. 2011 is when they just sort of showed the Wii U then walked off, right? 

Edited May 15, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[KrazyBean]

EA says Frostbite Engine can't run on Wii U.

 

EA downscales Frostbite engine to Mobile Phones with no issue.

 

http://www.destructoid.com/ea-takes-the-frostbite-engine-to-mobile-with-frostbite-go-253723.phtml

 

Some smartphones have even more powerful CPU's than the Wii U, not to mention that they probably want to aim at devices which have a huge amount of consumers, which is business 101.

 

CryEngine 3 can run on Wii U. Frostbite can't? CryEngine is supposed to be even MORE CPU intensive than FB...

 

No, it's not...it's more GPU intensive. I made a massive explanation about why BF4 isn't coming onto the Wii U a few pages back.

Edited May 15, 2013 by KrazyBean

[Swiss]

The Wii U feels like it's outdated already, let alone in half a year or so when we see what the next wave of tech will give us. I honestly don't see any reason to buy a Wii U until it's at the same sort of price that the Wii is now. I wouldn't want to pay £200 for something that's going to be completely under-par in terms of...well, almost everything at this stage.

 

Also I just want to say that this thread is basically my daily newspaper. Keep the lovely debates coming, you guys!

[KrazyBean]

The Wii U feels like it's outdated already, let alone in half a year or so when we see what the next wave of tech will give us. I honestly don't see any reason to buy a Wii U until it's at the same sort of price that the Wii is now. I wouldn't want to pay £200 for something that's going to be completely under-par in terms of...well, almost everything at this stage.

 

Also I just want to say that this thread is basically my daily newspaper. Keep the lovely debates coming, you guys!

 

I'm really only gonna buy a Wii U primarily for the new Zelda game...which isn't coming out until 2015 probably, so that's a long way away. I'll buy it next year if the new Mario game wows me like the way the first Galaxy did.

Edited May 15, 2013 by KrazyBean

[Gabz Girl]

Anyone know when the next Nintendo Direct is? Gads I just want to talk about something more positive than EA this and EA that. Yes they suck and yes they seem to have a grudge on Nintendo, but enough!

[SuperLink]

Yeah that's the main thing irking me at the moment, there's literally no Wii U news apart from negative 3rd-party-dropping-support news. Why the heck is Nintendo being so silent :c come on, give us a bone here.

[Autosaver]

The Directs seem to be random. I hope we can get one soon. Would love to see some progress on Pikmin, Project X, Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, etc. Maybe 3rd party announcements?

[Carbo]

Retro's game ought to be announced this E3 since they've been hiring testers lately.

[Conando]

The Wii U feels like it's outdated already, let alone in half a year or so when we see what the next wave of tech will give us. I honestly don't see any reason to buy a Wii U until it's at the same sort of price that the Wii is now. I wouldn't want to pay £200 for something that's going to be completely under-par in terms of...well, almost everything at this stage.

 

Also I just want to say that this thread is basically my daily newspaper. Keep the lovely debates coming, you guys!

 

Since the days of the N64, the reason to buy a Nintendo console has been Nintendo's games. I'm pretty certain that's not ever going to change now.

[Doctor MK]

You want some Wii U news? Here's some Wii U news... well technically it's 3DS and PC news too but whatever it's better than nothing

 

Scribblenauts Unmasked: A DC Comics Adventure - Coming Later This Year To Wii U/3DS/PC!

 

 

I... erm... didn't see this one coming!

 

http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/49601/scribblenauts-umasked-a-dc-comic-adventure-announced-for-wii-u-first-screenshots/

 

Suppose it would make sense for them to, y'know, actually release Scribblenauts Unlimited for Wii U/3DS in Europe before this releases. Remember, that game we should have got in February? Yeah. Wonder what's happening with that. Not that I'm too fussed though, seeing as I still have my pre-recall copy

[Swiss]

Since the days of the N64, the reason to buy a Nintendo console has been Nintendo's games. I'm pretty certain that's not ever going to change now.

 

Thing is, it seems like it's going to be another 2 or 3 years before there's enough Nintendo games to warrant buying the entire console for...I can't justify buying it for one or two (albeit probably incredible) games, I've made that mistake with consoles before (PSP).

[G-Force]

How many games would you say is enough?

[Tornado]

Five hundred ninety nine games.

 

 

 

And I wonder what the hell's up with Scribblenauts Unlimited. I hope you guys actually get it rather than a Phoenix Wright 3-style mess where it takes over a year and is released to barely any fanfare.

[Swiss]

How many games would you say is enough?

 

Probably somewhere around the 7-10 mark, I guess. These being the high-profile titles we know Nintendo can make, not just NSMBx9. Not saying that NSMB is bad, just not exactly spectacular in terms of production value and wow factor.

[Kuzu]

I really wish third party companies would release something decent so I can justify getting this thing. I understand Nintendo aren't exactly being helpful either, but this is pretty sad how nothing major is being planned for this system. I really want to care about Wii U, I really do but not as long both third party's and Nintendo are being anal with both third party games and support for those third party games.

[G-Force]

Probably somewhere around the 7-10 mark, I guess. These being the high-profile titles we know Nintendo can make, not just NSMBx9. Not saying that NSMB is bad, just not exactly spectacular in terms of production value and wow factor.

Oh, I totally get the wow factor thing, it's just that I was thinking about there being a point where a person could wait too long, have too many games to play through at once, and not be able to get through everything they intended to with new games coming out.  7-10 sounds about right.

 

It also occurs to me that consistent releases may be more important than the actual number of games, but, that's more of a random thought about the current situation than a serious point.

[Autosaver]

Eh, Scribblenauts Unmasked was actually teased a while back. Still cool though, I skipped out on Unlimited.

 

Now what they need to do is DRAWN TO LIFE WII U/3DS! Those games were amazing.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Summer Wii U game updates tomorrow!

 

[Candescence]

Huh, thought they'd be saving the Direct for E3. Eh, not complaining, I guess.

[Carbo]

Huh, thought they'd be saving the Direct for E3. Eh, not complaining, I guess.

It's not the E3 Direct. It's a Direct focusing on 3DS and Wii U titles that are releasing in the summer.

[PSI Wind]

Eh, Scribblenauts Unmasked was actually teased a while back. Still cool though, I skipped out on Unlimited.

 

Now what they need to do is DRAWN TO LIFE WII U/3DS! Those games were amazing.

It better have a depressing-as-fuck ending like the second game did.

[Autosaver]

$50 off Deluxe Wii U set

 

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5251733&csid=_61