Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Nintendo] The best January the Wii U has ever had

1404143454699

Posts

  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    Yeah, the PS3 already has support for giant files via optical media, already has a harddrive (and it's easy to replace for the geeks who want to copy games and use it as a full-on media console), and has added a lot of support for new technologies without a hardware upgrade. That's huge, when you consider what used to happen for hardware consoles. This is the first generation where consoles have had firmware upgrades to add features! I didn't buy my PS3 until after the firmware upgrade made it upscale DVDs, for example, and apparently now it can play 3D games and support 3D blu-rays?

    I have no interest in 3D personally, but it's nice that my console has been updated to support it without having to spend any money

    The PS3 may be older, but it's a multi-core CPU. Besides, even desktop games lag behind the state-of-the-art, since they too want to cater to common denominators, and as mentioned, getting a solid FPS is more important than having the most polygons or textures.

    I think some textures on the PS3 can be bland, and sure, current games could see an increase in polygons somewhat. But I also wouldn't be surprised if it only took 1 more generation to get to the point similar to "retina displays," where we hit the limit of what humans can perceive. If you're more than 7 ft away from a 50" screen viewing a 1080P movie, you're not going to perceive any increase in quality above 1080P.

    The other thing, though, is that if a system supports these firmware upgrades that allows for new features added to consumers, and that these firmware upgrades become mandatory, who's to say the dev tools haven't also improved? I'd be surprised if PS3 games are being coded just like they were 6 years ago.

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    @ElJeffe

    Most Xbox games render at like 600 lines or less, to my knowledge. They're upscaled to 720p (or more), and hud elements and such are at higher, but the 3D rendering is often at near-SD resolutions.

    Spoiler:
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    War Chest money is a funny subject within the context of generational improvement.

    Hypothetically, let's say the Wii-U is a total bust. They lose money on the console, 3rd parties don't develop games, sales go in the shitter. But generously, let's say that Nintendo can successfully eat that loss. Let's say they don't lose more than a billion dollars. That still leaves them bout $15 billion in cash and assets, which is a boatload.

    Where does Nintendo go from there? What is the market-centric fallout from a failed generation? Do you change your model? Do you go back to the drawing board and really bring something new and competitive to the table? Do you switch gears entirely? Do you liquidate your holdings and go home to buy a giant mansion?

    I think they get out of the set-top console market (possibly developing titles for Sony and Microsoft) and focus on handhelds, where they've been strongest for the past two generations.

    sig.png
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Right now the 360 doesn't play much if anything at 1080p. Hell, it doesn't play most games at 720p.

    Wait what? Since when is this?

    Since 2009 when Microsoft lessened the requirement on games having a native resolution of 720p, but some games even before that run at well below 720p even on the PS3. Here's a list of some noteworthy ones:

    Alan Wake = 960x544 (4xAA)
    Aliens Vs Predator = 1120x630 (custom AA)
    Battlefield 3 = 1280x704 (FXAA) black bars
    Bionic Commando = 1120x640 (no AA)
    Call of Duty 3 = 1040x624 (2xAA)
    Call of Duty: Black Ops = 1040x608 (2xAA)
    Call of Duty: Modern Warfare = 1024x600 (2xAA)
    Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
    Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)
    Darkness II, The = 1152x600 (FXAA)
    Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion = 1024x600
    Halo: Anniversary = 1152x720 (FXAA remake, no AA classic)
    Halo 3 = 1152x640 (no AA)
    Halo 3: ODST = 1152x640 (no AA)
    Halo: Reach = 1152x720
    Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 = 1024x576
    Prototype = 1120x640
    SSX = 1120x585

    Now, these are mostly 360 games, but their PS3 counterparts also generally run at these resolutions and then are upscaled to 720p or 1080p. They're also generally not running at 60fps.

    A modest bump in power could not only stop this form happening, but also allow lighting to be much much better across the board. While it's nice that you don't agree that there's much room for improvement in the current lineup of systems, the limits of the systems are starting to choke developers. When even small touches (like holstering a weapon in ME3), have to be cut because the systems don't have enough memory, it's time to start looking at improvements. This is just about the longest console generation I can remember, and I'm all for that. But to assume that their is nowhere to go from here is kinda crazy (which, while not the point of your post, was the point of the post I originally quoted, that there's not going to be a large leap forward as far as hardware next gen).

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    For the foreseeable future, more power is always going to be attractive to the traditional model.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    For the foreseeable future, more power is always going to be attractive to the traditional model.

    Is it? Facebook and iPhone games are doing pretty darn well despite being underpowered. Also the Wii keeps selling as much as the PS3.

    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Now, these are mostly 360 games, but their PS3 counterparts also generally run at these resolutions and then are upscaled to 720p or 1080p. They're also generally not running at 60fps.

    That's interesting. It's also a bit telling, though, that scores of games are running even below 720p and few gamers, I'd wager, really notice.
    A modest bump in power could not only stop this form happening, but also allow lighting to be much much better across the board. While it's nice that you don't agree that there's much room for improvement in the current lineup of systems, the limits of the systems are starting to choke developers. When even small touches (like holstering a weapon in ME3), have to be cut because the systems don't have enough memory, it's time to start looking at improvements. This is just about the longest console generation I can remember, and I'm all for that. But to assume that their is nowhere to go from here is kinda crazy (which, while not the point of your post, was the point of the post I originally quoted, that there's not going to be a large leap forward as far as hardware next gen).

    I agree, there are places to go. I just don't think those are places that many people will be willing to pay $400 to visit.

    And I think firmware upgrades and feature expansions are part of why this generation has lasted so long, along with the real lack of the possibility of dramatic graphical enhancements. Things like 3D and motion controls and increased functionality are the sort of things that would drive a new console generation, and developers have figured out how to do that without a need for new hardware systems. I won't say there's nowhere to go, but there are far fewer places to go that necessitate new hardware.

    [While watching popcorn in the microwave]
    Maddie: "Look Riley, the bag's as big as your head now!"
    Riley: "Hahaha, yeah!"
    Maddie: "Look, now it's as big as your butt!"
    Riley: "Omigosh, it looks just like my butt!"
  • Linespider5Linespider5 Agent of Etc.Registered User regular
    I have to say I do not really mind the idea of consoles becoming longer-lived devices.

    2014png.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I felt that way too, right up until I played Battlefield 3 side-by-side (pretty much) on the PC and Xbox.

    Yeah, the Xbox version looks like a gigantic gaping asshole on my HDTV.

    Longer-lived is great, I guess, but I think we're...you know, getting there. The average console gamer just doesn't realize it, because they have no frame of reference. Which, I suppose, means it really is fine (if they don't know any better, I suppose it isn't an issue). But damn, as somebody who can see both sides from where I sit, I'm really ready for the next generation.

    Spoiler:
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    For the foreseeable future, more power is always going to be attractive to the traditional model.

    Is it? Facebook and iPhone games are doing pretty darn well despite being underpowered. Also the Wii keeps selling as much as the PS3.

    And what a delightful world it would be if the state of the game development art were Facebook and iPhone games. Because, really, who needs Uncharted, Gears of War, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc. when you have Fruit Ninja, Angry Birds, Mafia Wars, and Mario Party 9?

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I felt that way too, right up until I played Battlefield 3 side-by-side (pretty much) on the PC and Xbox.

    Yeah, the Xbox version looks like a gigantic gaping asshole on my HDTV.

    Longer-lived is great, I guess, but I think we're...you know, getting there. The average console gamer just doesn't realize it, because they have no frame of reference. Which, I suppose, means it really is fine (if they don't know any better, I suppose it isn't an issue). But damn, as somebody who can see both sides from where I sit, I'm really ready for the next generation.

    This right here is what I'm getting at. The difference IS there. And it's a pretty big difference. I used to just play games on the 360, I had a computer capable of playing the PC versions of games, but after several years of having PC gaming be a painful experience, I stopped. However, recently I've picked up a number of games I missed on the 360 for the PC, and the comparison graphics wise is huge. If I were to never see the PC graphics, it wouldn't have been a big deal, but there is a marked difference. And even that difference isn't as big as the difference would be if consoles went to the next gen.

    While the comparison is kinda hard to see today, without what the next gen could do right in front of us, once it's in the stores on big 1080p screens at best buy I really can't imagine gamers not picking up one of the new consoles. This is a hobby that routinely asks us to buy a new chunk of hardware ever 5-6 years. I think after 7-8 even if the difference isn't jawdropping, the sales will be enough to get developers to move. And once that happens everyone else will fall in line. Also note that this is something we hear every console generation since the nes. I agree that deminishing returns have made the console generations longer, but not a full 10 years long. Quite possibly next generation though.

  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    Yeah, the step up is there to witness if you're paying attention on PC. Games like The Witcher 2, or even console games like Skyrim, Crysis 2, and Battlefield 3 running with their high-resolution texture packs stand out against what's currently on offer on the PS3 / 360.

    That said, it's not so much that those games look bad on consoles as they look worse in comparison. I damn well knew I was seeing something impressive when I saw Super Mario 64 or Metal Gear Solid 2 running on their upcoming consoles - meanwhile the effect I get when I watch a friend play 360 Skyrim compared to the PC version is not that the latter is totally jaw-dropping, it is just the idealized version of it in my mind which the 360 version sort of doesn't match up against.

    I think we're rapidly approaching the threshold where graphics are largely going to be a function of artistry (and accordingly, but not necessarily, how much money you're willing to put into them) rather than technological restrictions - at least until we have another revolution in display technology (and no, I'm not yet convinced 3D as we currently know it is going to be that revolution).

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    The PC versions of current console games look notably better than their console counterparts. However, these games are also made to still be playable on the current gen consoles, so the graphics are still being limited.

    With a new generation of consoles there would be a much bigger difference than between the PC games vs current gen consoles. And this would be because the developers wouldn't be restrained by the consoles as they are now.

    The main point is: If the difference is apparent with the same game from PC to Console, then without that limitation (the console), the developers would be able to do much much more. Quite possibly enough to have that WOW factor.

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I felt that way too, right up until I played Battlefield 3 side-by-side (pretty much) on the PC and Xbox.

    Yeah, the Xbox version looks like a gigantic gaping asshole on my HDTV.

    Longer-lived is great, I guess, but I think we're...you know, getting there. The average console gamer just doesn't realize it, because they have no frame of reference. Which, I suppose, means it really is fine (if they don't know any better, I suppose it isn't an issue). But damn, as somebody who can see both sides from where I sit, I'm really ready for the next generation.

    This right here is what I'm getting at. The difference IS there. And it's a pretty big difference. I used to just play games on the 360, I had a computer capable of playing the PC versions of games, but after several years of having PC gaming be a painful experience, I stopped. However, recently I've picked up a number of games I missed on the 360 for the PC, and the comparison graphics wise is huge. If I were to never see the PC graphics, it wouldn't have been a big deal, but there is a marked difference. And even that difference isn't as big as the difference would be if consoles went to the next gen.

    While the comparison is kinda hard to see today, without what the next gen could do right in front of us, once it's in the stores on big 1080p screens at best buy I really can't imagine gamers not picking up one of the new consoles. This is a hobby that routinely asks us to buy a new chunk of hardware ever 5-6 years. I think after 7-8 even if the difference isn't jawdropping, the sales will be enough to get developers to move. And once that happens everyone else will fall in line. Also note that this is something we hear every console generation since the nes. I agree that deminishing returns have made the console generations longer, but not a full 10 years long. Quite possibly next generation though.

    Ten years for the current generation was always a bit optimistic. The current (7th, according to Wikipedia) gen came out in 05-06, the one before in ~'00, 5th gen ~'95, 4th in ~'89, and the 3rd (with the NES) ~85. So roughly 4 years, 6 years, 6 years, 5 years, and 5 years. After almost three decades of roughly equivalent console lifecycles, thinking you could double the lifespan in one go is kind of silly. Moore's law is supposedly going to top out next year, and we haven't come up with a way to procedurally generate games yet, so the combo of reduced rate of hardware improvement and decreasing returns on investment for game development will naturally lengthen the generational gap... but 150% of the prior average seems reasonable for the current gen.

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • EddEdd Registered User regular
    Unless the next generation puts us squarely in the uncanny valley, I have a very difficult time with the idea that details like increased texture resolution will have anything to do with WOW factors. How do you market that kind of difference effectively to a mass audience - not hobbyists?

    I can see a campaign based around no load times, tons of streaming content (including the games themselves), connectivity, and guaranteed 1080p: the sort of details that speak to very real changes in our expectations for what technology is supposed to do.



  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    The PC versions of current console games look notably better than their console counterparts. However, these games are also made to still be playable on the current gen consoles, so the graphics are still being limited.

    With a new generation of consoles there would be a much bigger difference than between the PC games vs current gen consoles. And this would be because the developers wouldn't be restrained by the consoles as they are now.

    The main point is: If the difference is apparent with the same game from PC to Console, then without that limitation (the console), the developers would be able to do much much more. Quite possibly enough to have that WOW factor.

    Well, there are a few PC exclusives here and there that have been or are being developed without consoles in mind, and they offer a better idea of where the state-of-the-art is going. Witcher 2, for example, may be getting a console port now but it wasn't developed toward that end, and while it's damn pretty I'd argue it isn't a massive leap over what we've been seeing.

    Or here's another example:



    It looks great, arguably beyond what would be plausible on the current consoles, and yet probably not Earth-shatteringly better than what people think they're getting from BF3 on their consoles.

    I dunno, people will upgrade and will appreciate the improvement for sure, I'm just not getting the same feeling that the world of gaming is going to change right before my very eyes like it has in the past.

    Ultimanecat on
    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    Edd wrote: »
    Unless the next generation puts us squarely in the uncanny valley, I have a very difficult time with the idea that details like increased texture resolution will have anything to do with WOW factors. How do you market that kind of difference effectively to a mass audience - not hobbyists?

    I can see a campaign based around no load times, tons of streaming content (including the games themselves), connectivity, and guaranteed 1080p: the sort of details that speak to very real changes in our expectations for what technology is supposed to do.



    You don't really have to. The fact that it makes development easier for programmers and artists means that it will be cheaper to make the exact same quality of games that we have now for the new system. Sloppier code will run just as fast, less optimized models will load just as quickly, etc. Which means that game developers will want to make games for the new system, even ignoring added capabilities from the new hardware.

    The game-buying public is already used to the idea of buying a new console periodically, so the fact that a new set of systems are coming out 6 or 7 years after the last ones isn't going to shock anyone. If they're not massively expensive, people aren't going to throw a fit about MS and Sony trying to get more money out of them. The simple fact that it's new will be enough to sell units to people with disposable income and a gaming habit (or, more commonly, loud kids with gaming habits), and whatever boosted hardware specs are on the box will move units to the hobbyists.

    Console makers put tech specs on the box because they have to put something on the box, but tech specs don't sell consoles. Games sell them. And if the game makers want to develop for the new system, and some basic marketing can get enough units into homes to make it economically viable for game publishers to publish for the new system's format, the games will go to the new generation. And while the first set of AAA titles for the 720 and PS4 might have back-ports, the second run probably won't. Even if no extra money is spent on developing games that take advantage of the new hardware, game devs aren't going to be willing to spend the money to shoehorn Unreal Engine 5 games onto the 360 unless it is absolute market suicide to do so.

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    For the foreseeable future, more power is always going to be attractive to the traditional model.

    Is it? Facebook and iPhone games are doing pretty darn well despite being underpowered. Also the Wii keeps selling as much as the PS3.

    And what a delightful world it would be if the state of the game development art were Facebook and iPhone games. Because, really, who needs Uncharted, Gears of War, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc. when you have Fruit Ninja, Angry Birds, Mafia Wars, and Mario Party 9?

    ...I said that? Huh. I was talking about what the general marketplace is attracted to, but I guess my fingers typed something else entirely.

    But what the hey, I'll ask. Why do you necessarily have to have massive amounts of power to make great games? I mean, one of the most innovative games to hit lately is Minecraft, and that doesn't have high system requirements.

    Besides, Angry Birds Space is looking pretty darn innovative (skip to 3:00):



    But then again, as you said, tech specs don't sell consoles, games sell them. And you can get fun games all over the place, not just on the latest, bleeding-edge hardware.

    And more power doesn't always equal easier programming. In fact, development costs have absolutely skyrocketed this generation because of all the effort needed to make all the art assets, and that's driven many developers out of business. Not to mention that, in at least a few cases, new machines mean having to learn new programming tricks -- Sony's already said the PS4 won't be using the Cell, so programmers will have to spend time and money getting up to speed with whatever comes next.

    Just ask David Jaffe.
    A new generation of consoles would, he admits, make it much harder for the more ambitious projects to get made; rather than a focus on horsepower, he hopes console manufacturers work instead on functionality, looking to handhelds for how to speed up the unnecessary "ramp-up time," the endless splash and warning screens, when a game is loaded up - something he bemoaned at GDC last year.

    "I'm no longer that excited about next-gen technology; it means budgets go up," he says. "It sucks. The biggest thing I want is what you get from the PSP and the 3DS - it's always on, there's a sleep mode and I can just hit a button and I'm right back where I was and I don't have to go through all the boot-up shit."

    http://www.edge-online.com/news/jaffe-no-rush-next-gen

    Sure, he's just one guy, but I could get you more data on how more horsepower = more development money (if you want to develop a traditional retail game rather than indie, that is) if you'd like.

    cloudeagle on
    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote:
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    For the foreseeable future, more power is always going to be attractive to the traditional model.

    Is it? Facebook and iPhone games are doing pretty darn well despite being underpowered. Also the Wii keeps selling as much as the PS3.

    And what a delightful world it would be if the state of the game development art were Facebook and iPhone games. Because, really, who needs Uncharted, Gears of War, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc. when you have Fruit Ninja, Angry Birds, Mafia Wars, and Mario Party 9?

    ...I said that? Huh. I was talking about what the general marketplace is attracted to, but I guess my fingers typed something else entirely.

    Games that are "doing pretty darn well despite being underpowered" implies that they are in some fashion 'good' despite the limitations of their platforms. Either 'good' here means 'financially successful' or 'qualitatively desirable'. If you mean they are doing well financially then sure, fine, that's awesome. So are a lot of things. Twilight is making bank despite the deplorable level of Stephanie Meyer's grammar; what does this tell me about novelists and editors striving for grammar that doesn't suck? DVDs were selling pretty well when blu-ray came out and, in fact, are still selling pretty well. Was blu-ray pointless, then? Perhaps an argument could be made that this is the case, but I still don't think sales figures tell us anything useful about anything except what is selling well and, in some cases, how to sell more of things. They certainly don't tell us what makes a qualitatively superior work.

    If you mean that facebook and iphone games are of a desirable quality despite their platforms then I disagree. Angry Birds is a shitty game. In fact, it's a game that I've played better versions of decades ago. They lacked the cute graphics, sound effects, online connectivity, and portability, but those are all advantages offered by the platform over the 386-era PCs I played such games on. In terms of actual gameplay, it not only failed to do anything that hasn't been done before but the touch interface actually made it more difficult to muster the sort of precision required. It's a terrible game and, much like Twilight, I have no idea why it's so popular. Angry Birds Space appears to be the application of Super Mario Galaxy logic to Angry Birds: we've done this thing pretty much to death...what's our primary gameplay mode, here? flinging something off of the ground and trying to land in a specific spot? well, what if we made 'down' a non-constant? It was pretty novel when SMG did it five years ago.

    Very few facebook or iphone games actually do anything particularly novel or commendable in terms of gameplay. The biggest benefit to the game development artform to come out of Facebook and iPhone gaming is the reintroduction of low-cost-of-entry game development and publishing allowing indie developers to produce and market the few actually novel things to come out of those fields.
    cloudeagle wrote:
    But what the hey, I'll ask. Why do you necessarily have to have massive amounts of power to make great games? I mean, one of the most innovative games to hit lately is Minecraft, and that doesn't have high system requirements.

    Amusingly, Minecraft is a perfect example of my point. It does have high system requirements. I can't run it at all on my 5 year old laptop (which was top of the line at the time I got it) and it chugs hard enough on my brand new (not as top of the line, but not shabby) laptop as to be basically unplayable. It shouldn't have high system requirements for what it is. The processing power required to run it is a direct result of the fact that the game was made by one guy in the only language he knew well enough to write a game in. Unreal Engine 3 is vastly more complex than Minecraft, yet can run on a lower-end platform because it is also vastly more optimized. Minecraft was easy enough for Notch to write that he could do the whole thing by himself because he was able to leverage platform specs far in excess of what is technically the minimum requirement for what he was doing.

    The more powerful the hardware is, the easier it is to do anything. Yes, you can maybe write an algorithm that does task X in O(n) time, but it will take you 10 times as long as writing one that will do it in O(nlogn) or something. If you have enough spare processing power that there is no perf hit from using the less efficient algorithm, you can just not spend that dev time.
    cloudeagle wrote:
    And more power doesn't always equal easier programming. In fact, development costs have absolutely skyrocketed this generation because of all the effort needed to make all the art assets, and that's driven many developers out of business. Not to mention that, in at least a few cases, new machines mean having to learn new programming tricks -- Sony's already said the PS4 won't be using the Cell, so programmers will have to spend time and money getting up to speed with whatever comes next.

    The bold things there are completely unrelated. Programming could be a matter of plugging component A into slot B, so simple that a well-trained chimp could do it, and art costs would still go up as a function of screen resolution. If it's true that we're reaching a saturation point in terms of return on investment for graphics then it logically follows that a new hardware generation will have a decreasing impact on budgets due to art costs. If people can't tell whether a game is running at 720, 1080, or some bastard resolution that's not really either and the majority public can't tell a graphical difference between games built on some hypothetical PS4 and a PS3 then art budgets will not increase. Unless the system is demonically hard to program for, development costs will, overall, decrease due to the new hardware.

    Your following commentary about ramp-up times is directly attributable to what console hardware is trying to do. It's not hard to ramp up on programming for one PC versus another PC because, above the scope of low-level hardware acceleration-related programming, writing code for one computer is pretty much the same as writing it for another. Consoles are a different beast because, despite containing a fair number of off-the-shelf components, they are highly optimized for running games. The Cell architecture was famously an absolute pain in the ass to write performant code for, but once people figured it out it was really, really good at running that code.

    As the amount of oomph that you can shove into a set-top box for the same price point increases, the amount of optimization that console-makers have to do to make the things worth the purchase price in terms of what kinds of games they can run decreases. And the less optimized the hardware has to be, the less tolerant of weird architectures the software has to be. That means, again, lower development costs, lower ramp-up time (for programmers to learn how to code for the system), and lower costs to port between set-top consoles, desktop PCs, and other pc-like devices.

    As for Jaffe's complaints about system boot-time... Well, you're not going to improve that on the current generation. Shoving SSDs into all the machines and running games entirely off stored data would do it, but we're at least two generations away from that being feasible at the console price level. And I honestly have no idea what boot-time 'ramp up' has to do with budgets.

    In any case: you don't need more power to write good games. But more power makes writing good games easier (Minecraft being case-in-point, or Dwarf Fortress, another game that shouldn't logically have the system requirements that it does for what it is). And more power allows for types of games and features in games that could not otherwise exist. I know you don't think that levels and environments are any bigger on 360/PS3 games than they were on the N64, but it's simply the case that they've gotten bigger. Environment and AI behavior has gotten richer. The breadth and depth of player options have increased. There's not much separating Dragon Age: Origins from Ultima II in terms of raw, abstract game-play. The Doing Combat part of the experience is different, but the whole party of people gaining skills and encountering quests and NPCs thing is old, old tech. Yet an Ultima II era game could not feasibly have all of the gameplay features and story elements that DA:O does simply because it would have taken too much RAM, too much storage space, and too many processor cycles to keep track of it all for an Ultima II era platform to keep up.

    You can make a totally fun game that runs on no hardware. We went to the goddamn moon on something significantly less advanced than a pocket calculator. I hate Angry Birds, but a lot of people think it's fun. But simple, fun mechanics are not all there is to game design. Plenty of types of games require rather more than one or two control and response mechanisms. And the more of them there are, the more hardware you need. The fact that you can make a fun game that runs on a toaster oven doesn't invalidate the fact that there are kinds of fun games that can only run on a top-of-the-line PC.

    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Jesus, people. This thread is like a running gunbattle with stupid bullets.
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong Don't treat me like potato. Registered User regular
    CptHamilton, re: minecraft and high level development:

    I already brought up this point 15 pages ago. Cloudeagle missed the point twice, then when I finally cornered him into my meaning, (which took some doing because he was trying his damndest not to get it!), he finally dismissed the argument by saying:

    "But on the flip side, there's something about hardware restrictions that can really bring out a developer's creativity and, oddly enough, result in a better game. Hell, look at the better games on the iPhone. "

    It's fruitless.

    china_sig.jpg
  • RohanRohan Registered User regular
    Krathoon wrote: »
    I would be great if the Wii U Zelda has the OoT Link. The fairy showing up makes me wonder if it is.

    Old post I know, but I really doubt it. They were given art assets from the games and most likely used Navi as a means of showing off the lighting some more. I seriously doubt that anything in the demo will have an impact on Wii U Zelda, whatever form it takes.

    ...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.

    Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
  • RohanRohan Registered User regular
    Rohan wrote: »
    Krathoon wrote: »
    I would be great if the Wii U Zelda has the OoT Link. The fairy showing up makes me wonder if it is.

    Old post I know, but I really doubt it. They were given art assets from the games and most likely used Navi as a means of showing off the lighting some more. I seriously doubt that anything in the demo will have an impact on Wii U Zelda, whatever form it takes.

    My post came up twice? In different places? O_o

    ...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.

    Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    CptHamilton, re: minecraft and high level development:

    I already brought up this point 15 pages ago. Cloudeagle missed the point twice, then when I finally cornered him into my meaning, (which took some doing because he was trying his damndest not to get it!), he finally dismissed the argument by saying:

    "But on the flip side, there's something about hardware restrictions that can really bring out a developer's creativity and, oddly enough, result in a better game. Hell, look at the better games on the iPhone. "

    It's fruitless.

    ....what point did I miss? And what did I do to deserve a personal attack? Does suggesting that I haven't seen much of a gameplay impact from recent technological advancement really make you that angry?

    cloudeagle on
    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote:
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    For the foreseeable future, more power is always going to be attractive to the traditional model.

    Is it? Facebook and iPhone games are doing pretty darn well despite being underpowered. Also the Wii keeps selling as much as the PS3.

    And what a delightful world it would be if the state of the game development art were Facebook and iPhone games. Because, really, who needs Uncharted, Gears of War, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc. when you have Fruit Ninja, Angry Birds, Mafia Wars, and Mario Party 9?

    ...I said that? Huh. I was talking about what the general marketplace is attracted to, but I guess my fingers typed something else entirely.

    Games that are "doing pretty darn well despite being underpowered" implies that they are in some fashion 'good' despite the limitations of their platforms. Either 'good' here means 'financially successful' or 'qualitatively desirable'. If you mean they are doing well financially then sure, fine, that's awesome. So are a lot of things. Twilight is making bank despite the deplorable level of Stephanie Meyer's grammar; what does this tell me about novelists and editors striving for grammar that doesn't suck? DVDs were selling pretty well when blu-ray came out and, in fact, are still selling pretty well. Was blu-ray pointless, then? Perhaps an argument could be made that this is the case, but I still don't think sales figures tell us anything useful about anything except what is selling well and, in some cases, how to sell more of things. They certainly don't tell us what makes a qualitatively superior work.

    If you mean that facebook and iphone games are of a desirable quality despite their platforms then I disagree. Angry Birds is a shitty game. In fact, it's a game that I've played better versions of decades ago. They lacked the cute graphics, sound effects, online connectivity, and portability, but those are all advantages offered by the platform over the 386-era PCs I played such games on. In terms of actual gameplay, it not only failed to do anything that hasn't been done before but the touch interface actually made it more difficult to muster the sort of precision required. It's a terrible game and, much like Twilight, I have no idea why it's so popular. Angry Birds Space appears to be the application of Super Mario Galaxy logic to Angry Birds: we've done this thing pretty much to death...what's our primary gameplay mode, here? flinging something off of the ground and trying to land in a specific spot? well, what if we made 'down' a non-constant? It was pretty novel when SMG did it five years ago.

    Very few facebook or iphone games actually do anything particularly novel or commendable in terms of gameplay. The biggest benefit to the game development artform to come out of Facebook and iPhone gaming is the reintroduction of low-cost-of-entry game development and publishing allowing indie developers to produce and market the few actually novel things to come out of those fields.

    ...so basically you're admitting it's possible to make good games on underpowered hardware. Okay then.
    cloudeagle wrote:
    But what the hey, I'll ask. Why do you necessarily have to have massive amounts of power to make great games? I mean, one of the most innovative games to hit lately is Minecraft, and that doesn't have high system requirements.

    Amusingly, Minecraft is a perfect example of my point. It does have high system requirements. I can't run it at all on my 5 year old laptop (which was top of the line at the time I got it) and it chugs hard enough on my brand new (not as top of the line, but not shabby) laptop as to be basically unplayable. It shouldn't have high system requirements for what it is. The processing power required to run it is a direct result of the fact that the game was made by one guy in the only language he knew well enough to write a game in. Unreal Engine 3 is vastly more complex than Minecraft, yet can run on a lower-end platform because it is also vastly more optimized. Minecraft was easy enough for Notch to write that he could do the whole thing by himself because he was able to leverage platform specs far in excess of what is technically the minimum requirement for what he was doing.

    The more powerful the hardware is, the easier it is to do anything. Yes, you can maybe write an algorithm that does task X in O(n) time, but it will take you 10 times as long as writing one that will do it in O(nlogn) or something. If you have enough spare processing power that there is no perf hit from using the less efficient algorithm, you can just not spend that dev time.

    Huh, I had no idea it was that much of a hardware hog/that unopimized. Okay then, point taken, I was wrong.
    cloudeagle wrote:
    And more power doesn't always equal easier programming. In fact, development costs have absolutely skyrocketed this generation because of all the effort needed to make all the art assets, and that's driven many developers out of business. Not to mention that, in at least a few cases, new machines mean having to learn new programming tricks -- Sony's already said the PS4 won't be using the Cell, so programmers will have to spend time and money getting up to speed with whatever comes next.

    The bold things there are completely unrelated. Programming could be a matter of plugging component A into slot B, so simple that a well-trained chimp could do it, and art costs would still go up as a function of screen resolution. If it's true that we're reaching a saturation point in terms of return on investment for graphics then it logically follows that a new hardware generation will have a decreasing impact on budgets due to art costs. If people can't tell whether a game is running at 720, 1080, or some bastard resolution that's not really either and the majority public can't tell a graphical difference between games built on some hypothetical PS4 and a PS3 then art budgets will not increase. Unless the system is demonically hard to program for, development costs will, overall, decrease due to the new hardware.

    Your following commentary about ramp-up times is directly attributable to what console hardware is trying to do. It's not hard to ramp up on programming for one PC versus another PC because, above the scope of low-level hardware acceleration-related programming, writing code for one computer is pretty much the same as writing it for another. Consoles are a different beast because, despite containing a fair number of off-the-shelf components, they are highly optimized for running games. The Cell architecture was famously an absolute pain in the ass to write performant code for, but once people figured it out it was really, really good at running that code.

    As the amount of oomph that you can shove into a set-top box for the same price point increases, the amount of optimization that console-makers have to do to make the things worth the purchase price in terms of what kinds of games they can run decreases. And the less optimized the hardware has to be, the less tolerant of weird architectures the software has to be. That means, again, lower development costs, lower ramp-up time (for programmers to learn how to code for the system), and lower costs to port between set-top consoles, desktop PCs, and other pc-like devices.

    As for Jaffe's complaints about system boot-time... Well, you're not going to improve that on the current generation. Shoving SSDs into all the machines and running games entirely off stored data would do it, but we're at least two generations away from that being feasible at the console price level. And I honestly have no idea what boot-time 'ramp up' has to do with budgets.

    In any case: you don't need more power to write good games. But more power makes writing good games easier (Minecraft being case-in-point, or Dwarf Fortress, another game that shouldn't logically have the system requirements that it does for what it is). And more power allows for types of games and features in games that could not otherwise exist. I know you don't think that levels and environments are any bigger on 360/PS3 games than they were on the N64, but it's simply the case that they've gotten bigger. Environment and AI behavior has gotten richer. The breadth and depth of player options have increased. There's not much separating Dragon Age: Origins from Ultima II in terms of raw, abstract game-play. The Doing Combat part of the experience is different, but the whole party of people gaining skills and encountering quests and NPCs thing is old, old tech. Yet an Ultima II era game could not feasibly have all of the gameplay features and story elements that DA:O does simply because it would have taken too much RAM, too much storage space, and too many processor cycles to keep track of it all for an Ultima II era platform to keep up.

    You can make a totally fun game that runs on no hardware. We went to the goddamn moon on something significantly less advanced than a pocket calculator. I hate Angry Birds, but a lot of people think it's fun. But simple, fun mechanics are not all there is to game design. Plenty of types of games require rather more than one or two control and response mechanisms. And the more of them there are, the more hardware you need. The fact that you can make a fun game that runs on a toaster oven doesn't invalidate the fact that there are kinds of fun games that can only run on a top-of-the-line PC.

    ...which is all well and good, but you're missing the point I made. There is a very big difference between Ultima II and Dragon Age: Origins: price. It costs a shit-ton of money to make all those shiny graphics, voice acting, orchestral music and all that kind of stuff that people expect from bleeding-edge systems. A typical AAA console release has to sell between 500,000 and a million to start earning a profit. Like I said, the move to the PS3/360 era caused a lot of developers to go out of business, because of all the added costs. (Of course the economy didn't help.) Sure, developers could use that extra power to make things easier (which is a possibility I wouldn't deny), but they don't. Instead, they're chasing after teh shinies. Which, granted, is more of a problem of what developers want than the computers themselves. But, given the environment where shinies are valued over efficiency, mo power brings mo problems.

    (Keep in mind I'm approaching all this from a market-based perspective.)

    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    Kotaku has an interesting article up about why the WiiWare platform is having (had? it's a pretty dead console at this point, right?) a tough time drumming up business in a market where the PSN Store and Live Market are doing gangbusters.

    Here.


    Trent Oster, formerly of BioWare and currently of Beamdog, states why he won't work for the platform:

    - Nintendo has a mandated minimum of unit sales before it begins paying the developers for their product. Companies have to sell 6,000 units of a product before they see the first paycheck.

    - The maximum allowable file size for a WiiWare game is 40mb. For reference, Infinity Blade for the iPad is 315mb.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    Kotaku has an interesting article up about why the WiiWare platform is having (had? it's a pretty dead console at this point, right?) a tough time drumming up business in a market where the PSN Store and Live Market are doing gangbusters.

    Here.


    Trent Oster, formerly of BioWare and currently of Beamdog, states why he won't work for the platform:

    - Nintendo has a mandated minimum of unit sales before it begins paying the developers for their product. Companies have to sell 6,000 units of a product before they see the first paycheck.

    - The maximum allowable file size for a WiiWare game is 40mb. For reference, Infinity Blade for the iPad is 315mb.

    I was wondering when you'd notice that and add it to the "Nintendo is doomed" pile. :P

    Oster maybe isn't the best person to turn to for a thoughtful, reasoned look at the matter, since his full statement on the matter is a rant and goes on to call the Wii "a toy, not a console."

    BUT, he does have a point in that the file size is overly restrictive and a barrier to development. Microsoft has found success in being more flexible about maximum file sizes, and has attracted a lot of development as a result. And I think Nintendo has made a mistake by being overly restrictive on the download size for the Wii.

    Then again, it seems like Nintendo has learned their lesson. The maximum file size for 3DS downloadable games is now 2GB. The guys from Team Meat, who famously butted heads with Nintendo on the Wii when Nintendo wouldn't cut them any slack on the size of Super Meat Boy on the Wii (and the game got canceled for that platform as a result), now say they're looking forward to developing for the Wii U.

    http://nintendoeverything.com/83513/team-meat-says-eshop-has-2gb-file-size-limit-wants-next-game-on-wii-u/

    Incidentally, I found some info on Wired about game development budgets that might be helpful:

    cerny_aias-660x388.jpg

    http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/opinion-kohler-video-expensive/

    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Like I posted over in G&T, that graph is remarkably unhelpful and mostly seems to point out that game budgets have been rapidly increasing since, like, the invention of 3D graphics or some such. Tough to tell with absolutely no markings on either axis.

    His choice of x-axis lines is completely fabricated and spurious.

    shryke on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Well, game budgets have been increasing since the invention of 3D graphics. :P And then ever increasing art assets just pile onto it.

    This might be a better example:
    Mark Cerny, a game design consultant and creator of classics like Marble Madness and Crash Bandicoot, said in his DICE speech that the future of $50 million blockbuster games is “looking a little shaky.” If Raymond’s math is right, Cerny is understating the situation.

    “There aren’t many of these high-budget games,” he said. Only about 60 games sold more than 1 million units last year, according to Cerny, and a game produced on a relatively thrifty $20 million budget has a much better chance of being profitable in that environment. But he’s not sure publishers can staunch the spending spree.
    ‘There’s no intrinsic value to a $50 million game.’

    “There’s no intrinsic value to a $50 million game,” Cerny said. He likened the situation to Hollywood, where the cost of making summer tent-pole films has spiraled upward in the last decade. Waterworld was widely mocked for its $175 million budget in 1995, but that kind of money is routinely spent on big films today.

    The trouble, Cerny said, is that the games industry has learned how to spend big gobs of money just like those movie moguls.

    “In 1994, if someone had given me $20 million, I would have had no idea how to spend it,” he said, but game teams have become bloated with superspecialized jobs these days.

    http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/02/dice-blockbuster-games/

    cloudeagle on
    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    Yeah, the problem with WiiWare was that it was bolted on to the same technological framework as the Virtual Console. I don't think the Wii can actually run code directly off of its internal storage - it has to load the entire program image into RAM and work with it from there. That's all well and good if your only intent was to run decade(s) old emulated games, but would be problematic when today's direct download games are barely trailing in complexity behind traditionally-published stuff. If you recall, MS had similar restrictions in place at the start of the 360's life and only really loosened up once it realized that online marketplaces could have more than puzzle games and throwback shmups.

    In any case it looks like Nintendo is loosening up on the hardware restrictions, so all that leaves is potential developer access and payout stuff. We're not likely to hear about some of that for a long while yet, though.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • OptyOpty Registered User regular
    Also the Wii's internal storage is 512MB minus any reserved stuff and WiiWare/VC games are only allowed to run off of the internal memory, so that's also a reason why the sizes need to stay low. The 360 doesn't have either of those problems so they were free to up the initial 50MB limit to the now unlimited limit over the years as they pushed new systems with built in storage, larger hard drives, and USB drive support.

    In regards to hardware/size limits and how they affect game design/programming, I think having to come up with something that will fit within limited resources requires true innovation, intimate knowledge of the platform, and forethought. The NES wasn't designed to allow for scrolling screens at all but Nintendo figured out a way. The difference between SMB and SMB3 is vast but they both run on the same system. Games that launched on Live Arcade when it still had that 50MB limit talked about how they managed to fit so much game into such a small package and people were truly impressed about the tricks they had to use. As noted above, a lot of AAA games don't even run at 720p so they can use more graphical tricks and then just uprez the result.

    The problem is that such limits only work to foster better games if there's a reason for the developer to voluntarily obey that limit. If the Wii was the only system in town, devs would work around those limits as deftly as they did with the PS2 (they'd still complain, yes, but they'd do it). But since there's such a huge gulf in power between the Wii and the other two systems, devs choose the path of least resistance, go for the power and size and abandon the Wii outright. I don't think Nintendo gets it because their corporate ideology doesn't foster that mindset and they will always eke power out of their systems that no one thought possible but they expect third parties to have the same sort of drive and it will never happen. Third parties are interested in how easy it is to get what they have in their heads onto the system and as few barriers there are for that the better which means more power and more storage space will always trump something more limited.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    Actually Nintendo patched the Wii a while back and allowed WiiWare/VC games to be stored and run from SD cards. (Not sure why they didn't up the dev allotment at the same time, though.) Though that's a good point, Nintendo as a company are all about efficiency and they might not have appreciated that other studios might want the freedom to be a little more efficient. Or hell, maybe they just didn't anticipate that DD games could get so complex. As said above, it took a while for the 360's digital games to get that complex.

    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Up all night To get luckyRegistered User regular
    My question about the WiiU:
    The wii probably sold most of the hardware to casual gamers. That's why it sold so well. But those people are probably very satisfied with Wii graphics or simply stopped playing it completely a long time ago.

    So, how are they going to make those people upgrade to a WiiU? Graphics are not gonna make it, and the tablet thing seems to make the console a bit less user friendly to them.

    I know Nintendo said they're gonna pay more attention to "traditional" gamers this time, but a lot of gamers are kinda resentful of a supposed lack of hardcore games. So that's another barrier.

    I'm not going NINTENDO IS DOOMED or anything, and I'm not presuming to be an ace analyst, but I'm honestly curious about the WiiU market strength.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • agoajagoaj Avatar avatar avatar HD Avatar of the Year EditionRegistered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Actually Nintendo patched the Wii a while back and allowed WiiWare/VC games to be stored and run from SD cards. (Not sure why they didn't up the dev allotment at the same time, though.) Though that's a good point, Nintendo as a company are all about efficiency and they might not have appreciated that other studios might want the freedom to be a little more efficient. Or hell, maybe they just didn't anticipate that DD games could get so complex. As said above, it took a while for the 360's digital games to get that complex.

    Games from the SD card are actually copied to the system first before they're played. That's why games load slower the first time you select them, it's copying to the NAND. It's just automating the process of rearranging the fridge.

    5cCIDR0.png
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    agoaj wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Actually Nintendo patched the Wii a while back and allowed WiiWare/VC games to be stored and run from SD cards. (Not sure why they didn't up the dev allotment at the same time, though.) Though that's a good point, Nintendo as a company are all about efficiency and they might not have appreciated that other studios might want the freedom to be a little more efficient. Or hell, maybe they just didn't anticipate that DD games could get so complex. As said above, it took a while for the 360's digital games to get that complex.

    Games from the SD card are actually copied to the system first before they're played. That's why games load slower the first time you select them, it's copying to the NAND. It's just automating the process of rearranging the fridge.

    Ah, gotcha. I'll admit to being a little fuzzy on the finer bits of tech.

    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • Linespider5Linespider5 Agent of Etc.Registered User regular
    My question about the WiiU:
    The wii probably sold most of the hardware to casual gamers. That's why it sold so well. But those people are probably very satisfied with Wii graphics or simply stopped playing it completely a long time ago.

    So, how are they going to make those people upgrade to a WiiU? Graphics are not gonna make it, and the tablet thing seems to make the console a bit less user friendly to them.

    I know Nintendo said they're gonna pay more attention to "traditional" gamers this time, but a lot of gamers are kinda resentful of a supposed lack of hardcore games. So that's another barrier.

    I'm not going NINTENDO IS DOOMED or anything, and I'm not presuming to be an ace analyst, but I'm honestly curious about the WiiU market strength.


    I suspect things will largely remain the same. Expect these talking points for the next 5-7 years until it's time to start over:

    1) Nintendo will continue to expertly yield truckloads of cash from their first party titles.

    2) The Big 3 Publishers (EA, Ubisoft, and Activision) will marvel myopically about the new system very amorously but dedicate 5% of their development muscle towards anything major for it.

    3) The WiiU will have several high-profile RPG titles that will not sell nearly enough to make money for the people that developed them. This number of RPG titles will be somewhere between 5 and 7 games if you are generous about the definition of the genre.

    4) Ports will occur 7-14 months after the Sony and Microsoft versions have been released, and will also be pointlessly 'tailored' to the WiiU, making a game no one wanted for an audience that already bought the original for their other system and have already traded in for the next big title that the WiiU will also not be getting.

    5) Points 2-4 are ultimately trumped by Point Number One, for good and for ill.

    Ultimately all that this comes down to is, gamers need to ask, Am I getting enough out of this, and am I okay with it?

    The answer can still be yes.

    2014png.png
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Up all night To get luckyRegistered User regular
    My question about the WiiU:
    The wii probably sold most of the hardware to casual gamers. That's why it sold so well. But those people are probably very satisfied with Wii graphics or simply stopped playing it completely a long time ago.

    So, how are they going to make those people upgrade to a WiiU? Graphics are not gonna make it, and the tablet thing seems to make the console a bit less user friendly to them.

    I know Nintendo said they're gonna pay more attention to "traditional" gamers this time, but a lot of gamers are kinda resentful of a supposed lack of hardcore games. So that's another barrier.

    I'm not going NINTENDO IS DOOMED or anything, and I'm not presuming to be an ace analyst, but I'm honestly curious about the WiiU market strength.


    I suspect things will largely remain the same. Expect these talking points for the next 5-7 years until it's time to start over:

    1) Nintendo will continue to expertly yield truckloads of cash from their first party titles.

    2) The Big 3 Publishers (EA, Ubisoft, and Activision) will marvel myopically about the new system very amorously but dedicate 5% of their development muscle towards anything major for it.

    3) The WiiU will have several high-profile RPG titles that will not sell nearly enough to make money for the people that developed them. This number of RPG titles will be somewhere between 5 and 7 games if you are generous about the definition of the genre.

    4) Ports will occur 7-14 months after the Sony and Microsoft versions have been released, and will also be pointlessly 'tailored' to the WiiU, making a game no one wanted for an audience that already bought the original for their other system and have already traded in for the next big title that the WiiU will also not be getting.

    5) Points 2-4 are ultimately trumped by Point Number One, for good and for ill.

    Ultimately all that this comes down to is, gamers need to ask, Am I getting enough out of this, and am I okay with it?

    The answer can still be yes.

    But who will buy the system itself early on? What will make the casual people buy it? Take my sister, never played games, bought wii and wiifit, never turns it on. Anecdotal evidence, but it seems to be common. I can't see her buying a wiiu.

    I believe, so far, that the WiiU's greatest adversary is the Wii, in the quest to repeat the Wii's amazing sales. The Wii was the first console in years that anyone could play. The WiiU won't have that impact.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | XBL: Stormwatcher 21 | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Gamecenter: Stormwatcher33 | 3DS: 0130-2805-2850
    steam_sig.png
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Zhu-Li, do the thing! Registered User regular
    But who will buy the system itself early on? What will make the casual people buy it? Take my sister, never played games, bought wii and wiifit, never turns it on. Anecdotal evidence, but it seems to be common. I can't see her buying a wiiu.

    I believe, so far, that the WiiU's greatest adversary is the Wii, in the quest to repeat the Wii's amazing sales. The Wii was the first console in years that anyone could play. The WiiU won't have that impact.

    On the one hand, the notion that lots of people buy a Wii and then never turn it on is a bit of a myth. The NPD's analysis of games sold over a console's lifetime vs. the number of systems on the market currently puts the tie ratio of the Wii at 7.8 games per system, compared to 8.3 games for the PS3 and 9.1 for the 360. If that notion were true in any large sense the number would be much lower.

    http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/168546/Latest_NPD_results_paint_grim_picture_of_current_US_retail_game_landscape.php

    Then again, the Wii managed to hit before people realized casuals existed. Now we have Facebook, tablets and smartphones catering to them and making bargeloads of money doing so. So the Wii U doesn't quite have the open playing field the Wii did. And I personally question the "holy shit" factor of a tablet vs. motion controls, which seemed new and magical during its release. Yet the existence of portable casual gaming hasn't seemed to affect sales of the 3DS so far (at least since the price dropped to something reasonable), because it's selling like blowjob hotcakes.

    So who knows. Every new generation is a chance for the champions to fall and the underdogs to rise, or for things to stay more or less the same. Neither outcome's written in stone.

    3DS: 0344-9335-6762
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    There is no reason to believe at the moment that the WiiU will be a runaway success like the Wii. There is also no reason to believe that it needs to be that successful to guarantee the future success, let alone existence, of Nintendo.

    With the 3DS really picking up steam (and the Vita doing particularly poorly in comparison), the worst case scenario is likely Nintendo cruising back into its normal holding pattern of strong handheld sales bolstered by merely respectable sales of their home console.

    That said, having a year-long head start over the other upcoming consoles could be pretty vital - it all depends on what the WiiU offers and the sort of attention it gets from publishers. Like I've said a few times before, I think the main things publishers will be looking for in determining where to focus their games will be content control (ie restrictions on used games, pervasive online profiles) and easy monetization (ie stuff like in-game purchasing of DLC).

    I don't know where the WiiU will stack up in that regard.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Kotaku has an interesting article up about why the WiiWare platform is having (had? it's a pretty dead console at this point, right?) a tough time drumming up business in a market where the PSN Store and Live Market are doing gangbusters.

    Here.


    Trent Oster, formerly of BioWare and currently of Beamdog, states why he won't work for the platform:

    - Nintendo has a mandated minimum of unit sales before it begins paying the developers for their product. Companies have to sell 6,000 units of a product before they see the first paycheck.

    - The maximum allowable file size for a WiiWare game is 40mb. For reference, Infinity Blade for the iPad is 315mb.

    I was wondering when you'd notice that and add it to the "Nintendo is doomed" pile. :P

    Oster maybe isn't the best person to turn to for a thoughtful, reasoned look at the matter, since his full statement on the matter is a rant and goes on to call the Wii "a toy, not a console."

    BUT, he does have a point in that the file size is overly restrictive and a barrier to development. Microsoft has found success in being more flexible about maximum file sizes, and has attracted a lot of development as a result. And I think Nintendo has made a mistake by being overly restrictive on the download size for the Wii.

    Then again, it seems like Nintendo has learned their lesson. The maximum file size for 3DS downloadable games is now 2GB. The guys from Team Meat, who famously butted heads with Nintendo on the Wii when Nintendo wouldn't cut them any slack on the size of Super Meat Boy on the Wii (and the game got canceled for that platform as a result), now say they're looking forward to developing for the Wii U.

    http://nintendoeverything.com/83513/team-meat-says-eshop-has-2gb-file-size-limit-wants-next-game-on-wii-u/

    Incidentally, I found some info on Wired about game development budgets that might be helpful:

    cerny_aias-660x388.jpg

    http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/opinion-kohler-video-expensive/

    What is the axis? Misleading graph is misleading with no axis measurements.

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • Linespider5Linespider5 Agent of Etc.Registered User regular
    psyck0 wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Kotaku has an interesting article up about why the WiiWare platform is having (had? it's a pretty dead console at this point, right?) a tough time drumming up business in a market where the PSN Store and Live Market are doing gangbusters.

    Here.


    Trent Oster, formerly of BioWare and currently of Beamdog, states why he won't work for the platform:

    - Nintendo has a mandated minimum of unit sales before it begins paying the developers for their product. Companies have to sell 6,000 units of a product before they see the first paycheck.

    - The maximum allowable file size for a WiiWare game is 40mb. For reference, Infinity Blade for the iPad is 315mb.

    I was wondering when you'd notice that and add it to the "Nintendo is doomed" pile. :P

    Oster maybe isn't the best person to turn to for a thoughtful, reasoned look at the matter, since his full statement on the matter is a rant and goes on to call the Wii "a toy, not a console."

    BUT, he does have a point in that the file size is overly restrictive and a barrier to development. Microsoft has found success in being more flexible about maximum file sizes, and has attracted a lot of development as a result. And I think Nintendo has made a mistake by being overly restrictive on the download size for the Wii.

    Then again, it seems like Nintendo has learned their lesson. The maximum file size for 3DS downloadable games is now 2GB. The guys from Team Meat, who famously butted heads with Nintendo on the Wii when Nintendo wouldn't cut them any slack on the size of Super Meat Boy on the Wii (and the game got canceled for that platform as a result), now say they're looking forward to developing for the Wii U.

    http://nintendoeverything.com/83513/team-meat-says-eshop-has-2gb-file-size-limit-wants-next-game-on-wii-u/

    Incidentally, I found some info on Wired about game development budgets that might be helpful:

    cerny_aias-660x388.jpg

    http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/opinion-kohler-video-expensive/

    What is the axis? Misleading graph is misleading with no axis measurements.

    It is rather nice how the graph line just shoots off the top of the page past the future, and indeed, to mathematical infinity.

    Indeed, it would appear in 2015 we'll bankrupt the entire world economy attempting to make the next Call of Duty.

    2014png.png
Sign In or Register to comment.