Bayonetta 2 isn't going to change the perception of the Wii U, just like SoA:L didn't change the perception of the Gamecube. When Nintendo "reached out" to 3rd party devs, who did they reach out to and what did they say? I think the western devs told Iwata what their direction was, and he banked on Japanese home console dominance.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DICE: "We right now don't have support for the Wii U in the Frostbite engine."
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Bayonetta 2 isn't going to change the perception of the Wii U, just like SoA:L didn't change the perception of the Gamecube. When Nintendo "reached out" to 3rd party devs, who did they reach out to and what did they say? I think the western devs told Iwata what their direction was, and he banked on Japanese home console dominance.
TalesOfWin
Banned
you have a pc that is capable of BF4 with Frostbite 3?
I don't understand. Are you suggesting PCs can't run BF4?
I would imagine lots of people on this forum do....
But that's the thing, Nintendo went out and resurrected a game that was all but dead for the the "core" guys and all they did was bitch about it. If it had been Sony in the same situation, I doubt there would have been as much crap about it. So why bitch? A game they weren't going to be able to play at all now has a chance to see the light of day. Then they'll turn around and say that Nintendo didn't try to do anything for them. Heh, comical.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
Would that be unusual?
Maybe he's trolling. I can't imagine someone being that oblivious to PC gaming...
LOL, you mean casual irrational fanboys, because hardcore gamers would get the game regardless of what platform it was on.
I don't think funding Bayonetta 2 is in Nintendo's best interest, it is not aimed at the "core" gamer, but some niche gamer that Nintendo thinks is profitable for some reason. Kaijima said, "Nintendo is a Japanese company that competes globally," and that is why they'll fail in the west. There shouldn't be a Wii U made with Japanese sensibilities in mind, because home consoles don't fit their lifestyles, yet they made it anyway.
I think JordanN is on to something with the Wii U being a failed side project that was brought to market. I think Nintendo wanted the Wii U to be the handheld/console hybrid that would be suited to the Japanese portable market, but would be powerful enough for Westerners. When they couldn't cram the tech into a device with either long enough battery life and/or acceptable size, the Wii U as it is the plan b.
Running it, and running it well on higher settings are two different things.
Why wouldn't it be in their best interest? The game has a decent following, they need games, and it's something crazy enough to fill in a gap somewhere. Diversity is king and Bayonetta 2 will give them a bit of that. It won't light up the sales charts, but as people here keep saying they should throw some money around just to try to get gamers to jump in. Nintendo themselves probably couldn't make a game like Bayonetta, so letting Platinum do their thing won't hurt at all.
It doesn't make sense to ask the latter. Plenty of people have PCs that will run BF4 well. I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from.
TalesOfWin
Banned
No, I don't have a PC capable of that. What does that have to do with me being able to play all upcoming EA games on my PC but still looking forward to X more than any of them?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
To say they've done zero is stretching it a bit, but to think they've made a real effort to bring the core gamer back is stretching it as well. Getting UBI soft or Warner Bros to port over one of their games isn't some grand effort on Nintendo's part to bring in the core audience. Zombie U was UBI Soft's effort to capitalize on some early U sales by being the only exclusive U FPS on the market. Had nothing to do with Nintendo. Bayonetta 2 however is a big plus, and the kind of thing we need to see from them now and then.
But how much effort did they put into courting Rockstar or Bethesda? These guys are HUGE, and their games are enjoyed by millions of core gamers. We're talking ips like GTA, Red Dead, Skyrim, and Dishonored completely missing Nintendo platfiorms. We didn't even see Tomb Raider! These games need to be on their platform, and it's Nintendo's job to get them there.
Unless Nintendo changes, nothing else will. Nintendo's problem is they're only concerned about Nintendo. They build a console to suit themselves, while Sony and Microsoft consult with developers who work on their products. As long as Nintendo's games make money that's all that matters. Meanwhile Sony and Microsoft support third parties and advertise their games alongside their platform.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
There seems to be this mindset that Nintendo just rakes in profits but in truth haven't they been losing money under Iwata?
And the Japanese market isn't looking so loyal to Nintendo with the U selling like shit. Meanwhile the 7yr old PS3 has been the #1 selling console for some time over there. PS4 could easily take the scepter and move forward with it's next generation offerings U will never see.
You're wrong about this. I spoke with the developers of ZombiU directly and they told me that they wanted to stay with Killer Freaks, but Nintendo specifically requested that they make a more "hardcore" game. The ZombiU you see today is because of Nintendo.
I was also told that Nintendo was talking to people about what games would be good on the platform with developers and appealing to the "core" was one of their main goals. Whether "core" gamers appreciated it or not is a whole different story, but not for a lack of trying on their part.
As has been said many times, they can't force these guys to make games. I wouldn't doubt they've met with them, but all they can do is pitch the idea. Ultimately Bethesda, Rockstar, Konami, etc. have to make the call. When has Kojima and co. every really made a game for Nintendo? Same with Rockstar (though they did do GTA China Wars)? Getting these guys on board was gonna be hard and unless they were willing to throw all kinds of money around, just ain't happening. All they can do now is get the support they can and make the best of it.
Nintendo doesn't advertise third party games? Really? This notion that they don't do these things is why they can never win with this crowd.
I never said that those aren't core games and they obviously also aren't less due to the fact ...
But those are (partly old) 360 / ps3 games with, for the majority, no added value. Where is the incentive to pay 300$ to play the same game you could play half a year ago on 360/PS3?
If they really wanted to get the core gamers the first thing would have been making a console that is a visible jump from the old generation. This is imho just a necessary prerequisite. Then they should have invested haeavily by building a few mature coregamer studios.
So basically by not bumping the tech some huge level, they aren't doing anything for the "core" gamer?
JoshuaJSlone
Member
If there's any interest in using this engine on Wii U, wouldn't it make sense to do so earlier than later to be able to be used on more releases? If nobody's bothered in the first 2 years of system development, they just don't seem to care.
Still amazes me that support was so much bigger for Wii year one coming off the GameCube than Wii U year one coming off the Wii.FireVoa said:
I agree on both.
Lots of people love to act as if hardware is irrelevant, but that's not the case at all (especially if you want to appeal to the core audience).
The core audience has been stuck with 2005-level specs for too long. This is the longest gen in the history of the medium so, naturally, they're hungrier than ever for new hardware.
The same goes for publishers (and this is very important).
Big publishers are actually very frustrated that this gen lasted for so long and they can't wait for new hardware to arrive.
If Nintendo was interested in appealing to the core audience and receiving games like Elder Scrolls, as Reggie said, then, releasing a console like Wii U was the worst thing they could do.
Ironically, Nintendo could have easily released a product on par with the PS4/Xbox 720 without it being expensive.
crazy monkey
Banned
IMO they are fine wait till the price is released for others. if wii u is 199 Christmas it will sell like crazy.
I like how you go in extremes by saying "huge level", when no one said sth. like that.
And i said "to get the core gamer". And yes they did close to 0. The only valid thing i saw mentioned is Bayonetta.
They released a console that was better than the current generation, but obviously that isn't enough, so that's why I said "huge level". Seems to me that's the only thing that would have been satisfactory.
If you think that all they did to satisfy the "core" group was to bring over Bayonetta, then I really don't know what to say.
It really is weird.. Surely they would have had to start with porting the engine before they saw the low wiiU sales, if they wanted this game on the platform in the first place.
How do we know what has happened backstage? Obviously they ARE trying because we'd not have Bayo 2 or FE vs SMT or anything like that. Bottom line is they CANT FORCE studios to make games. Why is that not being comprehended? EA decided on their own to not port their games, as did Edios with Tomb Raider for instance, Nintendo didn't make them not do it, and who knows how much it would had cost them to try to get them? Do you bankrupt the company trying to pay for every game to be ported in the hopes people buy them? No you don't.
And lets stop giving publishers and developers a break here, as consumers we should demand our games as people are doing, it shouldn't be "ooh but the poor developer just couldn't port it!! leave them be!" no in industries that serve people, customers have a right to complain. It seems gaming is the ONLY industry where you'll have other gamers blaming everyone but the people making the product.
"Oh you fans should buy their test games!!! or oh it's not the publishers its the platform holder!!" guess what no one can force them to make the games. I'm primarily a PC gamer, and I think it's ridiculous more games don't come to PC so I know how the Wii U owners feel on this subject.
Stop glorifying the developers and remind them it's still a job and they'd not be doing me a "favor" to let me pay 60 dollars for their fucking game.
Edit: And no, I don't think power should matter in the least. You already spend a amazingly ridiculous amount on games, why not spread the cost to all platforms to try to recoup? The "oh well it's not as powerful as the next two" is a cop out and used to justify them simply not wanting to make games for the system. And if it's the case, then what's their excuse for not including PC, the highest specced gaming device their is?
Evolution_1ne
Banned
what have they done then....
Right, a console where u till now often don't see a difference and numerous games even run worse isn't enough.
They probably did more, but it doesn't amount too much.
Bad ports have nothing to do with Nintendo. Absolutely nothing. Blame bad ports on the guys who created them. Like I've said many times, we don't blame Sony for the crappy version of Skyrim for the PS3, we shouldn't blame Nintendo for problems with Arkham City and the like. Those problems fall squarely on the lap of the developers and publishers.
I didn't say it will, I don't think it will, it'll bomb in fact I'd bet, but I think it's an example of Nintendo making a pretty blatant grab at 'the core'. It was a statement of intent, if nothing else.
I totally disagree with this. It's absolutely Nintendo's fault. They're the platform curators, it is their job to make sure what their users get is of the highest quality. And yes, the same is true with Sony and Skyrim.
If that's the case, then I should make some crappy game with bad framerates and blame it on Sony, because it's totally their fault that my game runs like ass.
That's exactly why i said they should have built up a few western studios ...
The power thing was in relation to core gamers not devs.
If all the games suffered from the same problems then I say blaming the platform creator is just fine. When some games don't have problems and some do then the blame is on the developers and publishers for not having the ability to produce a product without the issues or the not being giving enough time to work through the issues they specifically might be having.
I want and hope Nintendo is expanding enough. We know they have been for a while now. Support isn't coming from the big third party publishers outside of a few rare situations. Nintendo has to deliver themselves.
That there is no support for the Wii U in Frostbite tells me all I need to know about EA. It isn't about sales. That was decided a long time ago. They simply aren't putting anything on the system period. The why isn't important at this point because whatever caused this isn't going to be undone. Nintendo needs to, if they haven't already, just wash their hands off when it comes to EA because they've clearly done so in regard to Nintendo already.
It's their fault they let you put it on their platform. It's your fault it runs like ass.
Mr_Antimatter
Member
The Wii has a clear, exciting novelty factor: the first major console with motion built as a theme. A lot of people were hyped about it, and there was tons of press. Still, most took a while to get major games out, and a few still ignored it, favoring the 360 and ps3 instead.
After the wii novelty wore off, and sales cratered, I have to think a lot of devs decided on a wait and see approach to the next one, to see if nintendo could recapture lightning in a bottle.
Not at all. It's 100% my fault. I paid money to make games on their system (dev kits and the like) and I made a crappy game. That's all on me. They had nothing to do with it. If that was the case, then why the hell did anyone let THQ make games for them back in the day? Those guys made ass on a stick. Nintendo tried to police "quality" and look where that got them. So yeah, bad games are all on the developers. Putting the blame on the console maker is just giving developers and publisher an "out" when they make shitty, poorly made games.
Personally I'm still of the opinion that Nintendo should be building more bridges with the western publishers/developers that haven't been making console games for as long, but here's the thing: Will we ever really know exactly what goes on in Nintendo's negotiations with third parties? Will we ever know exactly who Nintendo approached? The specifics of who had to make what deal? I don't think we will outside of the offhand comment from some company like Crytek explaining why Crysis isn't on the Wii U.
Going back and forth with the blame game is kind of pointless without some kind of proof as to who didn't do what.
So even if both the PS4 and next Xbox were to bomb for some reason, third party pubilshers will probably still will them into some kind of sustainability because their entire business models rely on those pieces of hardware being successful? To me that speaks of flawed business in the first place, but you can't expect them to slam the brakes and turn around to Nintendo's development environment in the event that the Wii U somehow does turn out to sell more hardware than the other two consoles.
Going back and forth with the blame game is kind of pointless without some kind of proof as to who didn't do what.
So even if both the PS4 and next Xbox were to bomb for some reason, third party pubilshers will probably still will them into some kind of sustainability because their entire business models rely on those pieces of hardware being successful? To me that speaks of flawed business in the first place, but you can't expect them to slam the brakes and turn around to Nintendo's development environment in the event that the Wii U somehow does turn out to sell more hardware than the other two consoles.
I blame it on Nintendo to put such an archaic cpu in there, thus creating performance problems where there shouldn't none.
I disagree. The PS3 has less memory than the 360, thus the problems. Cause it has two swap the memory the fps takes a huge hit and the game becomes unplayable. The game should have never come to market in this state. On the WiiU the games seem to run into problems when the cpu is stressed. And i can see the cpu being weaker in many cases against the other 2 ones. If the game is cpu bound and the cpu would be twice as fast the games would run better.
I completely disagree. A console is a curated environment, the whole point is the user isn't exposed to content a company is allowing. And first parties do decline games because of performance, quality, and bugs, etc. It is very literally their job. Sometimes they do it better than others, sometimes those bars for quality are lower than others, but that is their failings.
Twenty7KVN
Member
SO when the ps4 has the inevitable bad port are you going to blame it on the hardware then?
None of that matters. The bottom line is that the developers are responsible for this stuff. If they feel like they can't get the job done, then they shouldn't do it. If they try it and fail, then that's on them. We as gamers should hold them accountable. Allowing them to throw it back by saying it's "technical reasons" is just another excuse. They are responsible for the quality of their own product.
The thing is there's a fine line here and lots of politics, but as a gamer none of that should matter to us. The bottom line is that it's the publisher/developer's work and they live or die by that. Platform holders policing this stuff heavily doesn't do anyone any good. If that were the case we'd never get quality games like Ninjabread Man. At the end of the day, we play a game with a crappy framerate, texture problems and the like, and it's all on the developers of the game. They made it and released it in that state, so they're responsible.
Tutomos
Member
It's not just graphics, how about their online infrastructure. I see some forward thinking on Microsoft and Sony's part, they are creating apps on iOS and Android even though they have their own mobile platform or devices. You have to meet where the developers and consumers are, they don't have to meet where you are.
Depends from what it is ported from. If the 360 version e.g. has higher alpha effects than a ps3 version of a game, i can see the reason why, so i don't blame the dev.
Don't blame developers.
Developers work under the rules, budgets and schedules of publishers.
99% of the time a bad port (or game) is the fault of a publisher.
Creating multiplatform games for vastly different architectures consumes a lot of recourses, time and money.
There's a reason why both Microsoft and Sony decided to use the same CPU for their next-gen consoles. In an age where budgets are through the roof, they wanted to make life for 3rd parties as easy as possible.
Developers work under the rules, budgets and schedules of publishers.
99% of the time a bad port (or game) is the fault of a publisher.
Creating multiplatform games for vastly different architectures consumes a lot of recourses, time and money.
There's a reason why both Microsoft and Sony decided to use the same CPU for their next-gen consoles. In an age where budgets are through the roof, they wanted to make life for 3rd parties as easy as possible.
What madness is this?!?
If hardware A is inferior to hardware B, hardware A will run the game always worse (as long as hardware B isn't artificial crippled) no matter how good the dev is.
bbbuut its the evil developers who always spurn Nintendo! They just wont let their eternal cartridge only N64 grudge go, even if they are flushing money down the toilet by not supporting Wii U!
Nintendo has always treated the 3rd parties as after-thoughts and now the same is true vice-versa.
Hazelhurst
Member
Platinum Games will be Nintendo's savior.
Again, I totally disagree. But we're not going to agree, so let's move on.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Well I guess your story on Zombie U doesn't match up with what I've heard, which is the developers themselves decided to switch it to zombies.
You were "told" that Nintendo went around to developers looking for support? Oh ok, well, if you were told this by someone then it must be absolutely true.
Nintendo advertises third party games? I've honestly never seen an example, but I've seen plenty of third party commercials over the years that were either tied in to Xbox or Playstation.
In the end we don't know how much effort Nintendo has made trying to get some of these guys like Bethesda on board, but whatever they've done hasn't worked. Given the poor planning Nintendo themselves put into the U, I can only imagine the great lengths they went to in improving third party support.
I think my impression, from following this thread for a few days, is that the gamer I am is increasingly divorced from the majority of people posting here. I was Wii / PC last generation, and I had plenty to buy. Not even counting eShop games, I had about 30 titles I picked up and enjoyed over the course of the generation, and I've still got a bucket list of a few I want to pick up. I filled droughts in the schedule with Gamecube games that I had missed out on.
I still intend to buy a WiiU, probably after the summer update, a few more games coming out, and maybe a decent deal somewhere (the recent HMV nearly had me pulling the trigger). I would like a repeat of my Wii experience. I would like even more a Wii experience, with a 'best of' the most popular 3rd party titles available for me to buy, but not having them isn't personally a deal breaker.
I cannot understand how companies are hoping to turn a profit in the next few years, without porting to everything that they can, and without developing future markets in every accessible niche. I don't understand why EA have written off Wii U already - I'm sure something has happened behind the scenes. I don't understand how large Western 3rd parties can be so contemptuous of a certain consumer segment, one they could probably help convert into the customers of tomorrow.
Once again, it feels like these companies are betting their livelihoods on a decent level of success of the next Microsoft and Sony consoles. It feels like their lack of support of the Wii all over again, that they haven't learnt any lessons from that generation at all. It's sad, as I think there is going to be an increasing homogenisation of top budget games, and a lot of blood in the water when big projects fail, taking whole companies with them.
I still intend to buy a WiiU, probably after the summer update, a few more games coming out, and maybe a decent deal somewhere (the recent HMV nearly had me pulling the trigger). I would like a repeat of my Wii experience. I would like even more a Wii experience, with a 'best of' the most popular 3rd party titles available for me to buy, but not having them isn't personally a deal breaker.
I cannot understand how companies are hoping to turn a profit in the next few years, without porting to everything that they can, and without developing future markets in every accessible niche. I don't understand why EA have written off Wii U already - I'm sure something has happened behind the scenes. I don't understand how large Western 3rd parties can be so contemptuous of a certain consumer segment, one they could probably help convert into the customers of tomorrow.
Once again, it feels like these companies are betting their livelihoods on a decent level of success of the next Microsoft and Sony consoles. It feels like their lack of support of the Wii all over again, that they haven't learnt any lessons from that generation at all. It's sad, as I think there is going to be an increasing homogenisation of top budget games, and a lot of blood in the water when big projects fail, taking whole companies with them.