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

[Candescence]

Too bad it'll probably never be made.

 

1.5mil crowdsourcer for a video game? rarely ever succeeds

1.5mil crowdsourcer for a video game with a support fanbase which is cult and obscure at best? Never gonna happen.

And considering Silicon Knights, even in its new form, can't make a good game without Miyamoto supervising them, it would be mediocre at best, anyway. Ever since Eternal Darkness, Silicon Knights has been pumping out nothing but garbage. Their only other remotely successful franchise, Legacy of Kain, was made far, far better in the hands of Crystal Dynamics.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Shirou Emiya

[Autosaver]

Bad news - EA has just killed any support for Wii U with Star Wars games.

 

[Conando]

And they continue to try to come up for a reason that isn't "We're too scared to release games on a Nintendo system".

[Tornado]

That would be a pretty good burn, but I suspect Anderson went back to counting large bags of money soon after getting off Twitter.

[Conando]

Should I say too greedy, then? I mean, that would still play into fear of not making as MUCH money, but you know. It's either that or DICE is a terrible developer, because like fun the Wii U couldn't run BF2.

[Tornado]

I was referring to the last comment on the Twitter screencap.

[Conando]

Oh, my bad. Yeah, I don't really see what good that would do. Other than venting, that is.

[SuperLink]

EA's attitude towards Nintendo is frustrating to say the least, and it's even more annoying that seemingly nothing can be done about it.

 

Because it's bad news for WiiU owners in some way or another. Eesh.

[Carbo]

No Frostbite on the console in any capacity is a massive issue since all major EA games will be using it. It's telling that they didn't even bother to get FB2 working on it. If it was running questionably, the results most likely wouldn't justify the costs with how Wii U is performing right now.

[WarioBone]

No Frostbite on the console in any capacity is a massive issue since all major EA games will be using it

 

This is totally not an issue for me.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Metroid

[Carbo]

This is totally not an issue for me.

This might not be an issue for you but let's not pretend it isn't a massive issue nonetheless. We're talking over 10+ games EA is making that won't ever be put on the Wii U because the engine isn't working on it, and EA is still one of the biggest gaming publishers out there. There is a reason why securing EA and touting the "unprecedented partnership" at Wii U's unveiling was something that people made a fuss about. Not having them support you is a pretty big deal.

Last console that wasn't being supported by them? Dreamcast. We all know how that turned out.

[WarioBone]

This might not be an issue for you but let's not pretend it isn't a massive issue nonetheless. We're talking over 10+ games EA is making that won't ever be put on the Wii U because the engine isn't working on it, and EA is still one of the biggest gaming publishers out there. There is a reason why securing EA and touting the "unprecedented partnership" at Wii U's unveiling was something that people made a fuss about. Not having them support you is a pretty big deal.

Last console that wasn't being supported by them? Dreamcast. We all know how that turned out.

 

I was jokin'.

[Conando]

Here's the thing, though. If UE4 CAN run on it in some capacity, how the hell can a current generation engine not? Note I'm not saying UE4 runs well or anything, just that it can be done. Don't see much point since you wouldn't get what you wanted out of it. Something is wrong, either Frostbite sucks or EA devs are lying out of their asses.

 

Also. For fuck's sake, stop comparing the Wii U to the Dreamcast. Nintendo is in a totally different position from SEGA at that time. They're not halfway in the grave already. The hole isn't even dug.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[SuperLink]

This might not be an issue for you but let's not pretend it isn't a massive issue nonetheless. We're talking over 10+ games EA is making that won't ever be put on the Wii U because the engine isn't working on it, and EA is still one of the biggest gaming publishers out there. There is a reason why securing EA and touting the "unprecedented partnership" at Wii U's unveiling was something that people made a fuss about. Not having them support you is a pretty big deal.

Last console that wasn't being supported by them? Dreamcast. We all know how that turned out.

This is exactly why it's so frustrating that EA are so important in the industry.

 

And like Ralph said, Frostbite could certainly be ported to WiiU if EA really wanted it to be, which.. they clearly don't.

[Marcello]

Frostbite 3 is running on PS360 with Battlefield 4, isn't it? So it should certainly be possible on the Wii U. EA just isn't interested. Maybe if the sales pick up enough it'll happen. It's probably just not worth it right now.

[Conando]

Don't forget that the Wii U also already has a next gen engine running on it, Ubisoft's Anvil Next Engine. No technical excuse. There just isn't. Especially considering the busted ass 360 and PS3 can run Frostbite 3. I mean, especially consider the PS3. It's nearly as big of a mess as the Saturn; it's very hard to develop for (hence general subpar ports).

Edited May 7, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[Gabz Girl]

Sounds to me like EA just can't be bothered to port Frostbite to Wii U. Ugh.

 

Also. For fuck's sake, stop comparing the Wii U to the Dreamcast. Nintendo is in a totally different position from SEGA at that time. They're not halfway in the grave already. The hole isn't even dug.

 

I know right! The reason why EA didn't want to make games for the Dreamcast was because the Saturn games didn't sell well (I think there was more than that behind it too). Not to mention SEGA was already losing a lot of money at the time, which is nothing like the situation that Nintendo is in now. As for EA...well their reasoning here for not releasing games on Wii U is bollocks. 

[SuperLink]

We don't even know their reasoning and we may never know it. It could be petty as hell like some of us reckon, or there could be a good reason for it.

 

Either way the public face they're putting on is definitely out of the ordinary, especially so soon after announcing the "unprecedented partnership" stuff. We all know it's not to do with the WiiU's success (the GC was usually worse off and EA still supported it quite thoroughly) or power. We all know the WiiU can run Crytek and probably other engines smoothly. That isn't the issue here.

 

EA is making a conscious decision to pull back on WiiU support for a reason regarding the relation between companies, that's all it could be.

[Carbo]

Also. For fuck's sake, stop comparing the Wii U to the Dreamcast. Nintendo is in a totally different position from SEGA at that time. They're not halfway in the grave already. The hole isn't even dug.

I wasn't comparing Nintendo to Sega though. I was comparing the Wii U's third party situation to Dreamcast, which is not the same thing. It missed out on a lot of crucial titles, most notoriously the EA support.

 

I know right! The reason why EA didn't want to make games for the Dreamcast was because the Saturn games didn't sell well (I think there was more than that behind it too).

Funny you should say that. Wii U's software issue is at an absolute low. The console is going to go roughly a month with no new games released on it, which in all honesty is rather unheard of in the home console industry. All third party games are selling abysmally, with tons of games struggling to even break 10k. This is why third parties are jumping ship, there's absolutely no opportunity cost worth the effort right now.

 

Don't forget that the Wii U also already has a next gen engine running on it, Ubisoft's Anvil Next Engine. No technical excuse. There just isn't. Especially considering the busted ass 360 and PS3 can run Frostbite 3. I mean, especially consider the PS3. It's nearly as big of a mess as the Saturn; it's very hard to develop for (hence general subpar ports).

The problem with your assertion is that its something of a no true scotsman. It's a logical fallacy to assume that one engine designed for next gen means all of them have to, or even one that's optimized for lower hardware, work universally.

The reason why engines like CryEngine work on the Wii U is because they're heavily designed for GPU customization, which is the only facet that the Wii U can claim has superiority over it's current console peers. But it's CPU is a huge bottleneck, with it being a reason why games like Metro: Last Light were pulled. Some games and engines prioritize different parts over others, and Frostbite is a very CPU heavy engine.

This might come as a surprise to some people, but the CPU is actually significantly worse than the 360. In essence it's a bunch of Broadways duct-taped together. That's why Frostbite 2 wasn't suited for quick conversion either, and them abandoning the engine support for the console means that they either don't see the financial viability to continue with old tech, as well as them moving onto greener pastures. Rewriting the engine for the majority of the work to be handled by the GPU is not a cakewalk, and considering the third party situation, it's obviously not worth the investment.

Also, engines like Unreal 4 don't run native on the Wii U. It has to be scaled down to the point that there's no use in utilizing it. The mobile engine is the only one that runs on it, as well as UE3.

[Candescence]

The whole technical thing is somewhat complicated, but I'm not exactly convinced that the porting is that difficult.

 

Also, a slight tangent due to talk about game engines...

 

... You know, it's incredibly temping to slip in a mention of Unlimited Detail somewhere in this conversation, a bit of a bad habit of mine when it comes to stuff like this. But considering it's a potentially game-changing technology that could potentially completely change the way game rendering works, put every device on the same level rendering-wise, and potentially render all polygon-based engines completely obsolete, I can't really help it. It also helps that there's a good chance that the latest news on Euclideon's game tech will be revealed at E3. When the rendering of game geometry with any number of objects at any amount of detail becomes so utterly trivial as far as the GPU is concerned that there's a ton of room for a ton of other things on pretty much any device, a lot of developers will have to do plenty of thinking of how to fill all that empty space, with the only limits for rendering being resolution and disk space, making the Wii U's CPU bottleneck much less of an issue.

 

Granted, it's still something of an 'if' and 'wait and see', but if the technology does prove itself viable, I can see Nintendo rushing to make use of it as soon as possible, because it essentially benefits them the most.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Shirou Emiya

[Conando]

Now, forgive me if this is stupid. But, who the hell in their right mind would make a CPU intensive engine for consoles? Well, unless it was specifically for PS3.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[Conando]

Last console that wasn't being supported by them? Dreamcast. We all know how that turned out.

 

Also, not sure what you expect me to get from this. That the Wii U is such a massive failure that it drives Nintendo out of the console business? Because that's how Dreamcast turned out. A more apt comparison would still be the Gamecube.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[WarioBone]

Honestly, as long as the thing still plays Smash Bros., Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Pikmin, and Kirby, I don't care what the fuck happens.  I know nothing of business, sales, or the like, but as long as Nintendo keeps putting out damn fine First-Party games, they'll always have my money and my loyalty.

[KrazyBean]

Now, forgive me if this is stupid. But, who the hell in their right mind would make a CPU intensive engine for consoles? Well, unless it was specifically for PS3.

 

Because Frostbite 2 isn't a console specific engine, that's why BF3 is tons better on PC. There are so many things DICE had to sacrifice to actually make BF3 run on current gen consoles (map size, player count, vehicle removal in specific maps, graphics, etc...) and that will be the case for BF4, considering that Frostbite 3 has actually improved the engine quite significantly.

 

I'm no PC wiz, but if they aren't happy with BF4 running on the Wii U then that means that the Wii U has a weaker CPU than the PS3/360. Sure the extra RAM can help when it comes to running multiple things at once in the game more efficiently but it still needs processing power. Sure CryEngine 3 can run on the Wii U but it definitely doesn't have real time destruction, advance physics (which account for bullet drop, bullet velocity and so much more in BF3 all in real time) and vehicular warfare the way Frostbite 2 & 3 can.

 

The only reason why BF4 is coming on the PS3/360 in the first place is because not everyone can buy a PS4/NextBox to play the essentially, superior version of the game when its out...and EA needs to make some greens.

Edited May 7, 2013 by KrazyBean

[Conando]

That's exactly my point, why make it CPU intensive if that's almost never a console's strong suit? It's better suited as a PC game engine.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph