Support NeoGAF

[Baconsammy]

Obviously everyone's preferences are different, but it doesn't seem all that surprising to see more opposition to motion gaming on a more core oriented forum like GAF

I don't have a problem with people not liking motion gaming (I hate it). But to suggest it should be killed when there's obviously a large market for it is silly, especially when console gaming needs to include more people, not drive them away.

 

[metalslimer]

I don't have a problem with people not liking motion gaming (I hate it). But to suggest it should be killed when there's obviously a large market for it is silly, especially when console gaming needs to include more people, not drive them away.

Completely agreed. The more inular our hobby becomes the closer it comes to dying. I mean I personally hate the ideaa of Kinect taking away resources, but I dont fault MS on a business level if it actually succeeds

 

[Schnozberry]

Wii U will have Nintendo games that make great use of the hardware. Great artstyle for Mario and Zelda. But there won't be a BF4, a GTA 6, an Uncharted type of game on the Wii U. There just won't be. A game that is head and shoulders above the competition.

Also, early adopters are key to a platform success. Look at the Wii U, it is doing terrible with early adopters which has contributed to publishers withholding support which can lead to a vicious cycle of even less support going forward.

Well, I don't what will and won't be on Wii U. If they get their shit together and release a NFC card game based on Pokémon, they'll probably be profitable for the next 5 years anyway. If Nintendo continues the trend from the last Nintendo Direct, and secures exclusive games through financial and publishing deals with third parties, they may build a better library than people anticipate. I know some people thought this was going to be the generation where Nintendo finally caught up with and gained parity with Microsoft and Sony for big western shooters and action games, but I don't think they would have been able to compete there anyways, and this might yet end up being a better strategy for them. There are a entrenched online communities on Xbox Live and PSN, and the idea of them moving over to the Wii U for Call of Duty always seemed a little preposterous to me.

I'm also not saying graphics don't matter, but I think you overstate how important they are for the average consumer that isn't really into tech. They are extremely important for some, especially the people who post here who live for that shit, but that isn't the mainstream, which really didn't start moving from their PS2 to PS360 until two or three years after they came out.

 

[Steroyd]

Doesnt change the point

Kind of, it has moved from one negative connotation to another.

The average gamer doesn't care about dynamic lighting, bump mapping, normal mapping, unified shaders, ect...

Not seperately, but it will sure as hell will make them notice by how much more realistic it looks.

 

[Plinko]

Well, I don't what will and won't be on Wii U. If they get their shit together and release a NFC card game based on Pokémon, they'll probably be profitable for the next 5 years anyway. If Nintendo continues the trend from the last Nintendo Direct, and secures exclusive games through financial and publishing deals with third parties, they may build a better library than people anticipate. I know some people thought this was going to be the generation where Nintendo finally caught up with and gained parity with Microsoft and Sony for big western shooters and action games, but I don't think they would have been able to compete there anyways, and this might yet end up being a better strategy for them. There are a entrenched online communities on Xbox Live and PSN, and the idea of them moving over to the Wii U for Call of Duty always seemed a little preposterous to me.

I'm also not saying graphics don't matter, but I think you overstate how important they are for the average consumer that isn't really into tech. They are extremely important for some, especially the people who post here who live for that shit, but that isn't the mainstream, which really didn't start moving from their PS2 to PS360 until two or three years after they came out.

The fact that this hasn't even been hinted at yet is baffling. It could singlehandedly save this console from where it looks to be heading.

 

[phosphor112]

The average console gamer does not give a shit about that kind of difference.

Tell that to Hollywood.

"It seems to be the only way that the target movie goers -- 18 to 24 -- will pay to come to see a movie in a theater," Bibb said. The group makes up 80 percent of the theater going audience.

200+ million dollars on CGI alone...

 

[joesiv]

I hate that example, not that I don't think there is such a thing as diminishing returns, but whoever made that example did a horrible job to explain it. Just looking at polygon counts, the last example is lame, it looks like it had a "smooth" pass done to bloat the polygon counts, which means they're totally useless. The extra poly's could have went to better hair, heck 90% of the poly's could have went to the hair and made the model look far better, and other details like clothes, and eyes (and eye lashes), but instead it's just a smoothed mess that looks worse than the less poly version.

 

[Schnozberry]

The fact that this hasn't even been hinted at yet is baffling. It could singlehandedly save this console from where it looks to be heading.

Agreed. My guess is that they are holding off on blurting out new info until their fiscal year is over.

 

[NeonZ]

If they get their shit together and release a NFC card game based on Pokémon, they'll probably be profitable for the next 5 years anyway.

A spin-off likely won't do much. They need an actual Pokemon game on consoles - no mmorpg, I'm talking about an actual Pokemon entry for consoles that follows the guidelines of the portable games like Black & White or the upcoming X & Y. Maybe another expanded remake of Red&Green, but, either way, something that plays like the main titles on portables, but with completely 3d graphics and online modes.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

The fact that this hasn't even been hinted at yet is baffling. It could singlehandedly save this console from where it looks to be heading.

IMO its too late. Activision and Disney are two massive players and they have already got plans and solid release dates. Nintendo entering will definitely give them a cash flow but I don't think they can compete with the likes of Disney and Activision.

 

[Piggus]

Im assuming this is what he's talking about..

There's no doubt that every game forum member can tell a difference (jaggies, textures, lighting, etc)... I'm just not totally convinced that the casual game console user will see a big enough difference to shell out multi-100 dollars.

We're still at the point where levels in games are not very detailed compared to how they should look in real life, and that's a polygon issue. Character models are a bad example. It's the environment where there needs to be a lot of improvement.. Take rocks for example. A game like Skyrim could really benefit from higher poly meshes in the environment, especially for stuff like trees and rocks which are very angular and not at all natural looking.

Also you're not giving "the casuals" enough credit. According to a lot of people here, casual gamers are apparently blind to differences in graphics quality. It's a bit silly. The jaggies, lighting, textures, etc contribute to better looking games. Just because someone doesn't browse internet forums doesn't mean they're not able to recognize a nice looking game, and elements that make it look nice.

 

[v1oz]

People seem to forget that Unity 3D is free on the Wii U. That goes a long way to mitigate UDK 4.0 for smaller devs. Unity is quite competitive, has no licensing fees, development is swift and techwise it's closing in on the best engines out there.

Here's a video, it is every bit as jaw dropping as UE4.0's tech demo, but for entirely different reasons. As Unity and UE4 are both DX11 orientated engines then, basically, any graphical effect achievable in one is then achievable in the other.

http://www.jeuxonline.info/video/58...percu-capacites-graphiques-unity-4-directx-11

 

[KageMaru]

Dead Rising is going for scale though. Want an example, compare it to the Wii version where Zombie count is mostly diminished.

Any game that target realisms depends on high poly characters or environments. Fight Night's boxer's wouldn't be the same if they featured club hands because there was not enough polys to represent boxing gloves. It's also the same deal with car damage.


As for Marcus, well that's within a generation. If the leap was bigger, the visuals would follow close behind it.

Scale isn't really relevant to my point though.

My point is we don't really need poly counts to be much higher, at least not for the character models. Sure we'll see poly counts rise, but that jump in poly counts won't compare to the jump in shader effects, post process effects, texture resolution, etc.

There's a reason why poly quote have stopped this gen, because they really don't matter anymore. We're at the point where people can look like people and objects can look like objects.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

People seem to forget that Unity 3D is free on the Wii U. That goes a long way to mitigate UDK 4.0 for smaller devs. Unity is quite competitive, has no licensing fees, development is swift and techwise it's closing in on the best engines out there.

Here's a video, it is every bit as jaw dropping as UE4.0's tech demo, but for entirely different reasons. As Unity and UE4 are both DX11 orientated engines then, basically, any graphical effect achievable in one is then achievable in the other.

http://www.jeuxonline.info/video/58...percu-capacites-graphiques-unity-4-directx-11

I am not that impressed by that video. It's much more cartoony which is fine but I highly doubt we will see a Wii U game that truly resembles anything close to that.

 

[JordanN]

Scale isn't really relevant to my point though.

And what was that?

My point is we don't really need poly counts to be much higher, at least not for the character models.

You could say that for any part of graphics. But what good would that be?

Sure we'll see poly counts rise, but that jump in poly counts won't compare to the jump in shader effects, post process effects, texture resolution, etc.

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.

There's a reason why poly quote have stopped this gen, because they really don't matter anymore. We're at the point where people can look like people and objects can look like objects.

Poly counts have never stopped.

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

Guys, guys, remember this?

where did this gif originate?

 

[wsippel]

People seem to forget that Unity 3D is free on the Wii U. That goes a long way to mitigate UDK 4.0 for smaller devs. Unity is quite competitive, has no licensing fees, development is swift and techwise it's closing in on the best engines out there.

Here's a video, it is every bit as jaw dropping as UE4.0's tech demo, but for entirely different reasons. As Unity and UE4 are both DX11 orientated engines then, basically, any graphical effect achievable in one is then achievable in the other.

http://www.jeuxonline.info/video/58...percu-capacites-graphiques-unity-4-directx-11

Unity uses the D3D10 pipeline on Wii U, plus a couple of extensions.

What's interesting is that this is apparently a deal between NCL and Unity Japan. The GDC presentation was done by two Japanese guys, the former lead engineer at From Software who's now regional director at Unity Japan and an NCL engineer. I would have expected this to be spearheaded by NST or some other Western subsidiary, but that doesn't seem to be the case after all.

 

[netBuff]

People seem to forget that Unity 3D is free on the Wii U. That goes a long way to mitigate UDK 4.0 for smaller devs. Unity is quite competitive, has no licensing fees, development is swift and techwise it's closing in on the best engines out there.

Here's a video, it is every bit as jaw dropping as UE4.0's tech demo, but for entirely different reasons. As Unity and UE4 are both DX11 orientated engines then, basically, any graphical effect achievable in one is then achievable in the other.

http://www.jeuxonline.info/video/58...percu-capacites-graphiques-unity-4-directx-11

The fact that there's a deal with Sony in place to bring Unity to PS4 and Vita implies that this might not be a unique market advantage.

 

[joesiv]

We're still at the point where levels in games are not very detailed compared to how they should look in real life, and that's a polygon issue. Character models are a bad example. It's the environment where there needs to be a lot of improvement.. Take rocks for example. A game like Skyrim could really benefit from higher poly meshes in the environment, especially for stuff like trees and rocks which are very angular and not at all natural looking.

Agreed. Though often the details like rocks and trees' lacking polygons is due to budgets for artists time, along with polygon processing. Trees for example could use up a lot of polygons, but they also take a lot of time to create, if you want unique tree's it's even worse. I think this is an area where dynamically generated terrain will see big benefits.

And also, to really look next gen, the best looking rock isn't going to cut it, becuase it's how all the high polygon objects sit with each other, seeing clipped rocks in a flat dirt ground is just as jarring as a polygonal rock to start with. Things like shaders can help with this, but this is yet again another expense, having technical artists make shaders for all these types of details (or environmental artists painstakingly making mesh's for every square inch of an environment).

 

[RedSwirl]

I think the average console games does give a shit about better image quality. Graphics are frequently an important selling point.

why settle for less.

You would be so wrong. They care because in order for them to justify spending $300+ on new hardware there has to be a reason that is more than just a new input method. Fact is that the 360/PS3 could barely handle BF3, Bioshock Inifinite, and more. The games look like crap on these consoles. The games we saw on PS4 look NIGHT and DAY from PS3. There is a reason why the Playstation 4 reveal video on youtube has like 6000000+ views.

Nintendo expected the Wii U gamepad to be the difference maker as the Wiimote was last gen. It isn't. While I enjoy it and find off TV play great, it's not selling hardware. Know what sells hardware? Graphics that blow people away with games to show off said graphics. Wii U doesn't have it and won't have it.

The average gamer doesn't care about dynamic lighting, bump mapping, normal mapping, unified shaders, ect...

In fact... they don't care about anything except price. So Ouya is the next gen winner.

I'm not talking about the difference from one console generation to another. I'm talking about the difference between the console version of Tomb Raider (or Far Cry 3, or Bioshock Infinite) and the PC version. Yes, to people on GAF the better image quality, better textures, and hair physics do make a difference, but the average console gamer doesn't give a shit about relatively minor stuff like that. Not enough to spend hundreds more dollars on their hardware. How many of them are even aware that most 360 games are only running at 720p?

The point where the difference matters to the average console gamer is, say, the difference between Gears of War 3 and the U4 Infiltration demo (or the PC versions of Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3).

 

[wsippel]

The fact that there's a deal with Sony in place to bring Unity to PS4 and Vita implies that this might not be a unique market advantage.

Will the PS4 and Vita versions be free and actively supported by Sony? The PS3 version isn't.

 

[netBuff]

Will the PS4 and Vita versions be free and actively supported by Sony? The PS3 version isn't.

Considering they are taking an active role in getting Unity and are interested in more indy support for their systems: Probably yes.

But will the Wii U version be actively supported by Nintendo in a year?

I'm not talking about the difference from one console generation to another. I'm talking about the difference between the console version of Tomb Raider (or Far Cry 3, or Bioshock Infinite) and the PC version. Yes, to people on GAF the better image quality, better textures, and hair physics do make a difference, but the average console gamer doesn't give a shit about relatively minor stuff like that. Not enough to spend hundreds more dollars on their hardware. How many of them are even aware that most 360 games are only running at 720p?

The point where the difference matters to the average console gamer is, say, the difference between Gears of War 3 and the U4 Infiltration demo (or the PC versions of Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3).

They don't notice because they are not actively seeking out knowing about the differences and they aren't marketed to them. With a new console generation, platforms holders will be eager to clearly point to the increase in horsepower.

 

[wsippel]

Considering they are taking an active role in getting Unity and are interested in more indy support for their systems: Probably yes.

But will the Wii U version be actively supported by Nintendo in a year?

Actually, they took an active role when Unity came to PS3, and it still wasn't free. So: Maybe, maybe not. If it was free, they'd probably have said so in the initial announcement. They didn't.

And yes, Nintendo will certainly support it a year from now and beyond. Why should they drop it?

 

[Shiggy]

I'm not talking about the difference from one console generation to another. I'm talking about the difference between the console version of Tomb Raider (or Far Cry 3, or Bioshock Infinite) and the PC version. Yes, to people on GAF the better image quality, better textures, and hair physics do make a difference, but the average console gamer doesn't give a shit about relatively minor stuff like that. Not enough to spend hundreds more dollars on their hardware. How many of them are even aware that most 360 games are only running at 720p?

The point where the difference matters to the average console gamer is, say, the difference between Gears of War 3 and the U4 Infiltration demo (or the PC versions of Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3).

The urge to buy a new platform comes with games, not technology. The Wii U best illustrates this: While it does cost just as much as a PS3, it's still selling significantly less units. Why did the Wii sell so well? Because of games such as Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Mario Kart Wii.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Actually, they took an active role when Unity came to PS3, and it still wasn't free. So: Maybe, maybe not. If it was free, they'd probably have said so in the initial announcement. They didn't.

Why are you latching onto Unity for Wii U being free? Firstly, the basic version of Unity is free for everyone, and unless the Wii U version is some separate fork (which I feel is highly unlikely), you should be able to painlessly transfer everything you've got from the free version to it. Secondly, it's not exactly 'free' for people who want to develop on Nintendo platforms either: they have to hand over thousands of dollars for a dev kit before they gain access to it.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great move on Nintendo's part, but I think you're hyping it up to be a bigger deal than it really is.

 

[StevieP]

and unless the Wii U version is some separate fork (which I feel is highly unlikely)

It is.

 

[BillyBats]

I don't have a problem with people not liking motion gaming (I hate it). But to suggest it should be killed when there's obviously a large market for it is silly, especially when console gaming needs to include more people, not drive them away.

And many people are short sighted when it comes to motion gaming. I would LOVE to play a real boxing sim like Fight Night with tight motion controls. Imagine actually fighting Tyson or Ali etc? The tech WILL get there, it's just going to take some time. I also would love to see a baseball sim done the same way. Imagine actually being able to pitch and hit against big league players? Again, the tech will get there, MS and Sony are trying (Nintendo laid the groundwork) we just have to be a bit more patient and realize that the Kinect and Eye are the Atari 2600's of motion controls.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

It is.

In which case, they're fucked, because having a Unity game without platform portability misses the entire point of the engine.

 

[netBuff]

And many people are short sighted when it comes to motion gaming. I would LOVE to play a real boxing sim like Fight Night with tight motion controls. Imagine actually fighting Tyson or Ali etc? The tech WILL get there, it's just going to take some time. I also would love to see a baseball sim done the same way. Imagine actually being able to pitch and hit against big league players? Again, the tech will get there, MS and Sony are trying (Nintendo laid the groundwork) we just have to be a bit more patient and realize that the Kinect and Eye are the Atari 2600's of motion controls.

Your ideas seem like great fodder for America's funniest household accidents!

Boxing the air or swinging a virtual bat seems as unappealing as the rest of motion gaming to me, these aren't the experiences I'm looking for.

 

[v1oz]

Why are you latching onto Unity for Wii U being free? Firstly, the basic version of Unity is free for everyone, and unless the Wii U version is some separate fork (which I feel is highly unlikely), you should be able to painlessly transfer everything you've got from the free version to it. Secondly, it's not exactly 'free' for people who want to develop on Nintendo platforms either: they have to hand over thousands of dollars for a dev kit before they gain access to it.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great move on Nintendo's part, but I think you're hyping it up to be a bigger deal than it really is.

Even Unreal has a free version called UDK.

What you get for free with the Wii U is the full featured Unity Pro. Which is not the free version.

 

[A.E Suggs]

Oh well, its not like I won't have all 3 consoles anyway. WiiU will and always will be worth it for smash bros alone.

Spoiler

Or so I keep telling myself

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Even Unreal has a free version called UDK.

What you get for free with the Wii U is the full featured Unity Pro. Which is not the free version.

Except it's a version of Unity Pro that you (presumably) only have a license to publish Wii U games with. If you want to put your game on any other platform, you have to buy the 'unlocked' version of Unity Pro and any additional licenses on top of that.

I'll say it again - this is overall a good move from Nintendo - but I feel they've come at it from the wrong angle. Any Unity developer worth a damn already has a Pro license, so this isn't really a particularly attractive offer for them - effectively it's little different to what Sony and Microsoft offer.

 

[AzaK]

Im assuming this is what he's talking about..

There's no doubt that every game forum member can tell a difference (jaggies, textures, lighting, etc)... I'm just not totally convinced that the casual game console user will see a big enough difference to shell out multi-100 dollars.

That picture doesn't really tell the whole story. Sure you might not see much difference between 6000 and 60000 when applied to one model, but you can when you put that difference to use in the whole scene. You could have 10x the number of drawn objects on screen. That IS a difference.

It is.

Are you sure it's not just another target for the engine? Of course it would need to support the GamePad and things of that nature but all platforms have their idiosyncrasies.

 

[TheDrowningMan]

In which case, they're fucked, because having a Unity game without platform portability misses the entire point of the engine.

Nope.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-unity-engine-for-wii-u-both-in-house-and-out

How these games will be sold on Wii U was a topic Helgason steered away from. But he did say converting Unity games on Wii U "should take anywhere between a day and a month".

Getting a Unity game to work on Wii U will be no more complicated than clicking recompile, more or less. The work will be rethinking how the game is controlled. "Something that's perfectly designed for iPad and it's requiring 10-finger multi-touch or something, it might not work very well on Wii U," Helgason explained. "It might not make sense."

 

[StevieP]

It's Unity 4 Pro, but of course it's for/compatible with the Wii U gamepad/Miiverse/etc and made to work with the system's idiosyncrasies in that regard. That's what I meant by "its own fork" - not that it isn't based on the same Unity that's already out there. Developers who are familiar with the Unity 4 Pro environment can immediately dive in.

Unity 4 Pro costs somewhere around $1500-2000 on its own, from what I recall off-hand, but is included with the Wii U dev kit.

 

[RedSwirl]

The urge to buy a new platform comes with games, not technology. The Wii U best illustrates this: While it does cost just as much as a PS3, it's still selling significantly less units. Why did the Wii sell so well? Because of games such as Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Mario Kart Wii.

Agreed. People will start buying the PS4 and next Xbox when games show up that you can't get on current gen machines.

 

[joesiv]

I'll say it again - this is overall a good move from Nintendo - but I feel they've come at it from the wrong angle. Any Unity developer worth a damn already has a Pro license, so this isn't really a particularly attractive offer for them - effectively it's little different to what Sony and Microsoft offer.

How is it the wrong angle, when it doesn't cost the developer that already has unity pro anything. But it gets people who don't have it in the game for free.

Are you saying Nintendo should pay for the license for developing on their competing platforms too (unity pro license for other platforms)?

Nothing changes for people who have Unity Pro for other platforms, which is good. The only thing that changes is that porting to Nintendo Wii U won't cost anything, however for those same developers, they would have to pay the license upgrade to go to other platforms if they already haven't (such as IOS, etc..).

 

[diaspora]

Is UE4's absence a matter of can't or won't?

 

[Bony Manifesto]

How is it the wrong angle, when it doesn't cost the developer that already has unity pro anything. But it gets people who don't have it in the game for free.

Are you saying Nintendo should pay for the license for developing on their competing platforms too (unity pro license for other platforms)?

Nothing changes for people who have Unity Pro for other platforms, which is good. The only thing that changes is that porting to Nintendo Wii U won't cost anything, however for those same developers, they would have to pay the license upgrade to go to other platforms if they already haven't (such as IOS, etc..).

And here we go again: you have to buy a Wii U dev kit, for who knows how many thousands of dollars, before you can publish anything at all for the console (and presumably continuing royalties after that). I'm perplexed by this continuing notion that, in your words, "porting to Nintendo Wii U won't cost anything".

 

[wsippel]

Except it's a version of Unity Pro that you (presumably) only have a license to publish Wii U games with. If you want to put your game on any other platform, you have to buy the 'unlocked' version of Unity Pro and any additional licenses on top of that.

I'll say it again - this is overall a good move from Nintendo - but I feel they've come at it from the wrong angle. Any Unity developer worth a damn already has a Pro license, so this isn't really a particularly attractive offer for them - effectively it's little different to what Sony and Microsoft offer.

The Pro license itself only covers PC, Mac and Linux. No smartphones, no consoles. Console licenses are sold per platform and cost significantly more than the actual engine. What Nintendo gives you is Unity Pro with a free Wii U publishing license - if you're already developing a Unity game, you can publish your game on Wii U for free. That's a very attractive offer.

And here we go again: you have to buy a Wii U dev kit, for who knows how many thousands of dollars, before you can publish anything at all for the console (and presumably continuing royalties after that). I'm perplexed by this continuing notion that, in your words, "porting to Nintendo Wii U won't cost anything".

The devkit is around $2000 - 3000 - not exactly a huge investment. And royalties are not paid up front, so they're irrelevant in this discussion. You only pay royalties if you actually make money.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Agreed. People will start buying the PS4 and next Xbox when games show up that you can't get on current gen machines.

Sure, but those machines will, on day 1, look superior to 360 and PS3. That for some people is a significant enough selling point and will ensure, at the very least, a healthy buzz around the systems at launch.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

The devkit is around $2000 - 3000 - not exactly a huge investment. And royalties are not paid up front, so they're irrelevant in this discussion. You only pay royalties if you actually make money.

So how does that outlay compare with Sony and Microsoft's offerings then?

And even though royalties aren't collected up front, they're still a massive deal when it comes to how good the overall proposition is. You can't just ignore them.

 

[wsippel]

So how does that outlay compare with Sony and Microsoft's offerings then?

And even though royalties aren't collected up front, they're still a massive deal when it comes to how good the overall proposition is. You can't just ignore them.

Not publishing on a platform means no revenue. Keeping 70% of something is better than keeping 100% of nothing, right?

Sony and MS offer nothing. If you develop a game using Unity, and plan to release on XBLA and/ or PSN, you apply for developer status. If granted, you contact Unity Technologies and buy a license for whatever platform you want to release on. Those licenses are a couple ten thousand dollars per platform as far as I know. And you still need the devkits and pay royalties, of course. And if it's XBLA you're interested in, you need a publisher as well, as you can't self-publish on that platform.

 

[Plinko]

IMO its too late. Activision and Disney are two massive players and they have already got plans and solid release dates. Nintendo entering will definitely give them a cash flow but I don't think they can compete with the likes of Disney and Activision.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

 

[Grinchy]

Is UE4's absence a matter of can't or won't?

Probably both, I'd guess. It can't run the engine as-is, so they won't bother creating a whole separate engine that probably wouldn't justify its own existence financially.

 

[Bony Manifesto]

Not publishing on a platform means no revenue. Keeping 70% of something is better than keeping 100% of nothing, right?

Sony and MS offer nothing. If you develop a game using Unity, and plan to release on XBLA and/ or PSN, you apply for developer status. If granted, you contact Unity Technologies and buy a license for whatever platform you want to release on. Those licenses are a couple ten thousand dollars per platform as far as I know. And you still need the devkits and pay royalties, of course. And if it's XBLA you're interested in, you need a publisher as well, as you can't self-publish on that platform.

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.

 

[MYE]

seriously, whats wrong with those people man...

As embarrasing and juvenile as the internet can be, Mark is the only one to blame here. He should know better than making jokes at the expense of one of the four platforms that (can) keep his company going on.
Always be cordial and professional. This is basic shit people, safe and boring responses are used by almost every PR for a reason. If there is a chance that you will piss off a segment of the market, with no real advantage in return by doing so, keep your mouth shut.

In return he managed to get a room of gaming journalists laugh. Congrats I guess.

 

[netBuff]

As embarrasing and juvenile as the internet can be, Mark is the only one to blame here. He should know better than making jokes at the expense of one of the four platforms that (can) keep his company going on.
Always be cordial and professional. This is basic shit people, safe and boring responses are used by almost every PR for a reason. If there is a chance that you will piss off a segment of the market, with no real advantage in return by doing so, keep your mouth shut.

In return he managed to get a room of gaming journalists laugh. Congrats I guess.

Apparently, it's not one of the platforms that will keep his company going. A quippy comment at a trade show isn't going to have any real impact on Epic's future.

 

[MYE]

Apparently, it's not one of the platforms that will keep his company going. A quippy comment at a trade show isn't going to have any real impact on Epic's future.

If I currently think that I'm MAYBE not going to work with client X, I'm STILL not gonna publicly joke about that idea to get a few claps, laughs and fists thrown in the air at its expense.
There is absolutely NOTHING to gain by doing this except getting people angry and possibly relationships with that company more complicated in return.

 

[netBuff]

If I currently think that I'm MAYBE not going to work with client X, I'm STILL not gonna publicly joke about that idea to get a few claps, laughs and fists thrown in the air at its expense.
There is absolutely NOTHING to gain by doing this except getting people angry and possibly relationships with that company more complicated in return.

Without any first-hand experience on how it was said, this reads like you're inferring much about the general tone of his comments.

Even then, this really isn't all that severe (especially in light of Epic not supporting the Wii U for UE4 - a much bigger affront).