Actually, engines are more often licensed to save time. Money wise, it's not that beneficial.
Well you know what they say, time is money.
Actually, engines are more often licensed to save time. Money wise, it's not that beneficial.
I find your username hilariously appropriate. You looked inside his head and knew, just knew exactly what he was laughing about (post hoc twitter rationalisations aside).
Labelling the Wii U 'last gen' is going to be a running sore in online debates. Some people see it that way, for reasons I don't agree with, and which they seem to be selectively applying in this generation. That's fine, but you will be endlessly explaining and arguing your odd definition, which will get in the way of any other debate you try to have.
If the WiiU picks up in sales, and you're as greedy as lets say Activion, you'd do it for the money. Other wise, yeah I see no reason.
True, but the point being that the actual cost of producing Wii U ports wouldn't be the issue, it's the man hours which could otherwise be improving the other versions. Money isn't usually as notable a barrier to game development as people seem to think, it's actually the things you mentioned above. A Wii U port of a UE4 game would be a decision that almost certainly doesn't rest on the cost of the port, it's everything around that which stops it being viable.While interesting, isn't that arguing over semantics? Saving time is going to translate into a monetary incentive in some way (reduction of risk, hitting of target dates), otherwise no one would license any third-party engines.
http://m.ign.com/articles/2013/03/29/unreal-engine-4-frostbite-3-will-not-support-wii-u
Just wanted to point out that this is what I said at the start of this thread. Not sure why they havn't changed the article title, same goes for Kotaku?
I find your username hilariously appropriate. You looked inside his head and knew, just knew exactly what he was laughing about (post hoc twitter rationalisations aside).
Labelling the Wii U 'last gen' is going to be a running sore in online debates. Some people see it that way, for reasons I don't agree with, and which they seem to be selectively applying in this generation. That's fine, but you will be endlessly explaining and arguing your odd definition, which will get in the way of any other debate you try to have.
With that logic it could come to the game boy.
You don't pay Sony or Microsoft (except for the devkit), you pay Unity. Unity Pro is $1,500 and only supports PC, Mac and Linux. Licenses for Flash, iOS and Android are another $1,500 each. So to release your game on PC, iOS and Android, you have to pay Unity $4,500. Console licenses are a lot more expensive and issued per-title:Okay, I didn't realise Sony and Microsoft demanded tens of thousands of dollars to get started on their platforms. You're not just taking stabs in the dark here are you - you do have some sort of insight into these figures?
But still, no matter what, I think the only real option for a Unity developer on a shoe string budget is the PC, where you can get started with Unity for free, and look into porting options once the game is close to being finished. Committing to a single platform from the outset seems like a move without any obvious benefit.
http://unity3d.com/unity/faqConsole publishing is not included with Unity Pro - you will need a special Unity license for each platform on a per-title basis. First, you will need to be a registered developer with the console manufacturer or license holder, such as Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo. After you are registered and approved by the console manufacturer, you will need their devkit hardware and software tools. At that point you can purchase a console license from Unity Technologies for use on a per-title basis.
Not really .. There is a base line hardware spec. You have to have enough ram to hold the UE 4 overhead and CPU that can run the basic functions . Gameboy doesn't have that. The wii u does.
some people here were arguing it was impossible. It is very possible just not practical with the given cost vs return on the wiiu at this time.
Yeah Sony doesn't remember that comment or even the cell itself for that matter. X86 here Sony comes.
You don't pay Sony or Microsoft (except for the devkit), you pay Unity. Unity Pro is $1,500 and only supports PC, Mac and Linux. Licenses for Flash, iOS and Android are another $1,500 each. So to release your game on PC, iOS and Android, you have to pay Unity $4,500. Console licenses are a lot more expensive and issued per-title:
The initial investment is $2,000 - 3,000 for the devkit (which can obviously be used for more than one title). A few hundred copies sold is enough.That depends on the initial investment, and whether that 70% of something makes a return on that investment.
Also, you keep going on about Unity. Do you really think it makes up for a lack of UE4, Frostbite 3 and probably Fox, Luminous, whatever Rockstar ends up using for their next gen games?
Isn't there still some revenue threshold in place? Though most iOS games probably never exceed that threshold anyway...You can develop on iOS without using the Pro release and pay a much lower fee... they do remove some interesting features from it though, but some games can do without them...
Unity Technologies doesn't make those license fees public. From what I've read, it's more than $10,000 per platform and title (some sources say $15,000). Nintendo gives you a Wii U only version of Unity Pro for free. Anyone working on Wii U exclusives gets the engine for free, for as many titles as they wish to release, and if you're already working on a Unity game for any other platform, you don't need to pay any additional license fees to release on Wii U. You only have to buy the devkit and invest maybe a couple of days, so you'll break even after just a few hundred copies sold. You're honestly telling me that's not attractive?
Just wanted to point out that this is what I said at the start of this thread. Not sure why they havn't changed the article title, same goes for Kotaku?
Gaming journalists don't have to be "objective" in their personal opinions. They are allowed to be critical of Nintendo.
As a journalist your job is to report the news unbiased and provide information. Gaming "journalists" can't seem to keep their personal opinions out of it.
Anyone got any ideas of how much it would cost Epic to get their "official UE4 WiiU version" up and running?
Because if Nintendo were really worried about it, then surely they'd just pay Epic to do it?
Or am I missing something here?
Part of a journalist's job is to relay information factually and correctly - but that doesn't preclude adding any (reasonable) analysis or personal opinion. Opinion based journalism is a big part of today's world, I don't see why gaming journalists should be held to some insane standard as long as their opinions are clearly identifiable and they don't exclude important facts in their articles or falsely represent reality.
And let's not forget that this panel was targeted at developers, not journalists.
You are assuming Nintendo gives a shit. They just want you to buy the next Mario, Wii Fit and Zelda. They don't care about third parties.
And what was that?
You could say that for any part of graphics. But what good would that be?
Nonsense. Upping environment or character detail has as much importance as shaders or post processing. Arguably more. More polygons allow for more gameplay experiences, increased realism etc.
Poly counts have never stopped.
http://m.ign.com/articles/2013/03/29/unreal-engine-4-frostbite-3-will-not-support-wii-u
Just wanted to point out that this is what I said at the start of this thread. Not sure why they havn't changed the article title, same goes for Kotaku?
As a journalist your job is to report the news unbiased and provide information. Gaming "journalists" can't seem to keep their personal opinions out of it. Save the personal opinions for your reviews, not in the news.
That quote doesn't really mean much, if anything at all. They said the same thing for UE3 on the Wii and no one bothered to port it over.
It won't happen. Nintendo doesn't care and Epic CERTAINLY do not care at all. Perhaps Rein and CO have simply been forthright about voicing their mirth at the WiiU but it's not anything most other devs wouldn't have laughed at as well had they been in the same situation.Anyone got any ideas of how much it would cost Epic to get their "official UE4 WiiU version" up and running?
Because if Nintendo were really worried about it, then surely they'd just pay Epic to do it?
Or am I missing something here?
https://store.unity3d.comI think it's hard to say how attractive it is when you're so reliant on conjecture when it comes to pricing (seriously, where are you getting these numbers from?). As a developer, you need to look at everything: the up-front costs, the development costs, the royalties, the number of copies you can expect to sell, and work out exactly which platforms are worth your while from that. And, as I say, it's hard to beat the PC from that perspective.
I guess we'll see who's right when it comes to how many Unity games get announced/released for the Wii U. If you're right, and the economics make it a no-brainer, pretty much every Unity game of note should also release on the Wii U, right?
Probably right that no one will port it over, but it does disprove 80% of the posts in here that claim wiiU can't handle it.
It won't happen. Nintendo doesn't care and Epic CERTAINLY do not care at all. Perhaps Rein and CO have simply been forthright about voicing their mirth at the WiiU but it's not anything most other devs wouldn't have laughed at as well had they been in the same situation.
Probably right that no one will port it over, but it does disprove 80% of the posts in here that claim wiiU can't handle it.
https://store.unity3d.com
Again: The investment is $2,000 - 3,000 for the devkit. That's it. And royalties are by no means Wii U specific. Do you think Steam or the AppStore distribute your software for free? Getting on Steam is neither free nor easy, and while you can distribute PC games yourself, most devs want the exposure. Anyway, distribution royalties have little to do with the platform and nothing with the engine.
HahahaUE4? I think you meant Unity.
THE FUTURE IS YOUUUNEEEEEETEEEE!
Anyone got any ideas of how much it would cost Epic to get their "official UE4 WiiU version" up and running?
Because if Nintendo were really worried about it, then surely they'd just pay Epic to do it?
Or am I missing something here?
Pretty much this whole post is just nonsense.For the most part of this thread comments are saying that the Wii U is underpowered to run unreal engine 4. Mark Rain said it could run it but they do not support the Wii U. The double standards some people have in this thread is amazing. So Nvidia is salty to consoles because AMD have all the contracts for this generation of consoles. So why Mark Rein wouldn't be salty to Nintendo and Wii U because simple they did not licence their engine?
Also with the Xbox 360 collaboration and the release of Gears of War on Microsoft console Mark Rein was shitting on Ps3 and the Wii about the tech specs and how Xbox 360 was the future of gaming and Unreal 3 was the best thing humanity's eyes ever graced up on. Next thing we saw how Ps3 struggle to get support from Epic engine because most of the ports from Xbox 360 was an ugly glusterfuck in the early years of the console(Mass Effect 2, Turok, Unreal Tournament 3).
Now they are all kisses with Sony because they licence their engine something they didn't do with Ps3. I think it's normal for a company that is investing millions of dollars on specific systems to run their engine to trash talk an another competitor that from the look of things have no hope to collaborate.
Plus the strategy from developers like epic who invested to other consoles(ps4,Nextbox) to put Wii U in the same scale as the Xbox 360 and Ps3, which isn't true at all, serve to keep the mind share that "next gen" consoles is WAY more POWERFULL than nintendo's tin-can to sabotage sales. So keeping less risk something like the previous generation repeating(Nintendo got all the monnies).
If nintendo did licence Unreal Engine 4 Mark Rain would be all over Iwata's pecker. Same as he was with Microsoft before and with Sony now. It is Element(ary).
https://twitter.com/MarkReinwe spent valuable time and resources bringing UE3, the engine most suitable to it, to the WiiU.
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/14/water-meet-fish-epic-games-mark-rein-on-wii-u-ps-vita-and/"'If Nintendo made a system that could run our engine, we'd be on it like water on fish.' And so when someone asked me what I thought about the Wii U, I said, 'Water, meet fish.'" Seems pretty direct if you ask us!
True, but the point being that the actual cost of producing Wii U ports wouldn't be the issue, it's the man hours which could otherwise be improving the other versions. Money isn't usually as notable a barrier to game development as people seem to think, it's actually the things you mentioned above. A Wii U port of a UE4 game would be a decision that almost certainly doesn't rest on the cost of the port, it's everything around that which stops it being viable.
UE4 probably could run on Wii U. The question becomes if UE4 would do anything witin the Wii U that UE3 could not.
If you strip out the very demanding lightning, particle and material effects, what does UE4 have over 3?
Keep in mind that UE3 can be heavily customized, that Star Wars tech demo was running on UE3 for instance.
Pretty much this whole post is just nonsense.
https://twitter.com/MarkRein
As he stated in the past:
this is turning into wust 2.0. Its pretty funny how much people just dont want to face the facts in front of them.
It could probably run on the 360 too if you strip out all things that require more powerful hardware.
Maybe Epic are butthurt over the deal that Nintendo have struck with Unity?
right "facts"You give me tweets I state facts.
Nintendo never worked together with Epic even on the port of Unreal Engine 3 was made by 3rd party studios like Rocksteady.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games
Check the above list and see how many games were ported on nintendo consoles using unreal engine in general. Two-three so why Epic should support the Wii U with tools about the Unreal 4?
As for the comment of Rein about water meets fish, it doesn't contradict my opinion on the matter. Before he was referring to specs, when he made this comments was at e3 2011 when the specs was not problem for Wii U. The same e3 EA promised unprecedented support for the console.
Maybe Rein was expecting Nintendo to licence their engine now that the Wii U is strong enough for Epic, they didn't they licence Unity so Epic lost a potential client so he is salty. Sony licence their engine maybe for cheap alternative to keep the developing costs down for their internal studios so Ps4 is "Next Gen" for Epic and Wii U isn't. Strategic partnerships is fuelling this comments and right now Rein is on Sony's train. Good for him what ever makes his company floats.
Maybe Epic are butthurt over the deal that Nintendo have struck with Unity?
I have said it before, I dont give a shit, Rein can say what he wants, but the way he did it I find it unnecessary.
The same applies to that Gabe quote, I think it would have been better if he did not say that. But the Mark Rein is worse because of the way he said it laughing.
Yeah I was about to say, gabe backtracked pretty hard.
Yes, that must be it. Epic is the one butthurt.
/rolleyes
UE4 probably could run on Wii U. The question becomes if UE4 would do anything witin the Wii U that UE3 could not.
If you strip out the very demanding lightning, particle and material effects, what does UE4 have over 3?
Keep in mind that UE3 can be heavily customized, that Star Wars tech demo was running on UE3 for instance.
My comment was aimed at the crazies who are acting like Rein laughed at victims of abuse or war widows. I thought this was relatively clear in the reference to a fictional world's inhabitants that no sane person should consider themselves a resident of.
I'm not sure from where you derive this devkit cost for the Wii U. And from where you derive that devkits for Durango and PS4, 360 and PS3, and so on, are an order of magnitude higher.The initial investment is $2,000 - 3,000 for the devkit (which can obviously be used for more than one title). A few hundred copies sold is enough.
Except we're in the realm of consoles here. EA's major titles going forward will use Frostbite 3. Unreal Engine 4 will, like it's predecessor, likely end up one of the most popular console middleware engines. Fox is forming the basis of Konami's output. And so on.And I didn't bring Unity up, I'm just trying to clear up some misconceptions. Does it make up for the lack of UE4 and Frostbite? Hard to tell. Unity is far more widespread than any engine you mentioned, but not used for AAA blockbusters.
And yet, how many of them are coming to the Wii U?It's very common in the PC indie scene, though. Project Eternity, Torment, Endless Space, République - all those games run on Unity.
That's all very interesting. I already clarified my post. I'll make the target of my condescension much more clear in future. As I'm sure will Mark Rein.There is nothing about the term "Nintendo Land" to inherently indicate that its inhabitants are crazies who think Rein was laughing at war widows. "Nintendo Land" is amongst a wide variety of Nintendo* terms that typically get applied to all Nintendo fans, and that is how your post came across. It came across as lumping all Nintendo fans into one big generalized smorgasboard to deride them for the posts of a few.
Thus, mentalfloss calling you out for hugging a hyperbole and my post on 'smh.'
For example:
UE4 probably could run on Wii U. The question becomes if UE4 would do anything witin the Wii U that UE3 could not.
If you strip out the very demanding lightning, particle and material effects, what does UE4 have over 3?
Keep in mind that UE3 can be heavily customized, that Star Wars tech demo was running on UE3 for instance.
That said, there is some misconception's that just because an engine supports a platform, doesn't mean a game a developer makes for say high end PC's and PS4, will all of a suddon work on that other platform, even if it has "support". Case in point, just because IOS and Android are going to be supported in UE4, doesn't mean those platforms will get ports of those PC and PS4 games.The point of UE4 on the WiiU isn't what it can or can't do on the console, but rather the existence of a good middleware platform from which multiplatform titles may be easily ported to and from the WiiU. In turn, developers have a harder time getting their game on the WiiU and as such, do not have the funding or manpower to dedicate to engineering UE4 to work on the WiiU, making the investment required to produce the port unpalatable. This is just all around bad for WiiU owners because it means fewer games.
That's all very interesting. I already clarified my post. I'll make the target of my condescension much more clear in future. As I'm sure will Mark Rein.