Support NeoGAF

[Sho_Nuff82]

This applies to the 3DS too. Those games get more and more alike the Gamecube and Wii games.

The Gamecube isn't currently selling 12-15 million units a year like the PS3, and Nintendo makes sure their handheld versions are distinct from their console versions. And distinct =/= inferior in every way.

 

[Kilrogg]

There it is again: developers thinking they absolutely have to use the hardware to its fullest. Hey geniuses, many games on the DS and Wii were successful even though they didn't use the touchscreen or motion controls (much). The Wii U literally can do everything the PS3 and 360 can and then some, but here's the thing: you can drop the "and then some" if you want to. A good game will sell if the interface isn't completely inappropriate.

Now to be honest, I don't know who's to blame: Nintendo for pushing a "software has to make use of the hardware" mentality, 3rd parties selectively listening to that part of their discourse (while dismissing actual Nintendo games that don't even use the hardware), or both.

I suppose it's a bit of both. I wonder if Nintendo is encouraging developers to use the touchscreen on the Wii U controller and to what extent.

 

[test_account]

The Gamecube isn't currently selling 12-15 million units a year like the PS3, and Nintendo makes sure their handheld versions are distinct from their console versions. And distinct =/= inferior in every way.

From what i understood, hes talking about the experience. Mario Kart 7 is a Mario Kart experience, just like Mario Kart Wii. If he is talking about multiplatform titles, then the same things apply there as well. Why buy Fifa for 3DS when you can buy it for PS3/Xbox 360?

But i dont want to start a big discussion around this in this topic. I just wanted to say that the experience between handheld and consoles are often very similar, and that it is mostly the portability aspect that set the things apart from eachother.

 

[Synth_floyd]

Microsoft has shown its strengths as a software company this generation. Xbox Live, regardless of the gold/free tiers, is the best online system available and the 360 was a breeze to develop for compared to the PS3. The PS3 had a very schizophrenic hardware system and was difficult to develop for. It will have to be seen if MS can legitimately be successful in Japan the next gen.

 

[kidfresh718]

IMO i think which ever console launches first ps4 or next xbox will either be first place or 2nd place this next generation. consumers buy what comes out first usually and die hards fans will wait for the favorite company to release there system.

 

[DaSorcerer7]

There it is again: developers thinking they absolutely have to use the hardware to its fullest. Hey geniuses, many games on the DS and Wii were successful even though they didn't use the touchscreen or motion controls (much). The Wii U literally can do everything the PS3 and 360 can and then some, but here's the thing: you can drop the "and then some" if you want to. A good game will sell if the interface isn't completely inappropriate.

Now to be honest, I don't know who's to blame: Nintendo for pushing a "software has to make use of the hardware" mentality, 3rd parties selectively listening to that part of their discourse (while dismissing actual Nintendo games that don't even use the hardware), or both.

I suppose it's a bit of both. I wonder if Nintendo is encouraging developers to use the touchscreen on the Wii U controller and to what extent.

Nintendo EAD's Katsuya Eguchi says he hopes third-party developers only make use of the Wii U's touchscreen if it "makes sense" for the title they're working on.

Speaking in the latest issue of Edge, which is arriving with subscribers now and features an 8-page Wii U cover feature, Eguchi all but confirms developers aren't required to make use of the innovative screen - just like 3DS devs don't have to use 3D.
"I don't think it's necessary for any and all developers working on software for the Wii U to make use of all of its features, including the touchscreen," Eguschi-san told Edge.

"Regardless of whether it's a Nintendo developer or a third-party developer, if it makes sense for the game to make use of the touchscreen, I hope they take advantage of that. If it doesn't, I hope they don't.

"But it is one of the unique offerings among all of the consoles available out there, so if it does give a distinct flavour to the Nintendo version of a game, then I hope they utilise that to its fullest."

CVG

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

The ability to play the game on the screen, like a handheld, is enough for me.

That reminds me, how is that even supposed to work for games that extensively use both the TV and the tablet screen at once?

They'll either have to compromise or disable the feature. Which really means that any developers who don't care to do much with the pad screen, those most concerned with multiplatform, are in the best position to support the whole-game-on-controller feature.

The PS3 is a great example of a console's successor never being gifted its predecessor's audience.

Yeah, but it's also a good example of showing up a day late and a dollar short. Even letting that dollar short remain--what if it wasn't a day late? Change nothing in how X360 or PS3 performed but trade their launch dates, and PS3 becomes single-platform market leader until 2008, is a much stronger #2 for the following years, and X360 is stuck with ~20% hardware market share (or sub-40% HD market share).

I think the lesson to be learned from N64 and PS3 is to not make a horrible screwup (carts, price) and give your competitors big lead time to capitalize on it.

 

[aeroslash]

An IDE is the environment you develop software in. The most common IDEs are Visual Studio (Microsoft), Xcode (Apple) and Eclipse (open source). A toolchain is basically a set of applications to translate source code to something the machine actually understands and consists of compilers, linkers, assemblers, build systems, debuggers, profilers and the like (often hidden behind or part of an IDE). The most common toolchains are the one integrated in Visual Studio, the one integrated in Xcode, and the stand alone GNU toolchain (open source). For Wii U, Nintendo decided to go with the GHS MULTI IDE and toolchain, a rather exotic and expensive suite that is typically used in high reliability, high security embedded development (like medical, industrial and military applications). It's simply not a familiar environment for game developers, most of which most likely never even heard of GHS, which means that it requires additional training and education.

Thanks! How difficult do you think it is for a developer to go from visual studio to multi?

 

[Kilrogg]

Nintendo EAD's Katsuya Eguchi says he hopes third-party developers only make use of the Wii U's touchscreen if it "makes sense" for the title they're working on.



CVG

Thanks. That's reassuring.

 

[Giant Panda]

Huh? I would say Vita is proof Sony DIDN'T learn from their mistakes with PSP. Even if it is good value, they priced themselves out of the handheld market again. Nintendo made the same mistake, but they could wiggle out of it because they gave themselves room to do so. Probably the biggest mistake they repeated was making the games too close to PS3. Why buy Vita versions of games that you can play on PS3. PS3 and Vita are cannibalizing eachother. Portability alone is not a big selling point anymore.

One thing they got right was moving to cartridges instead of discs, but then they made a new mistake by requiring overpriced proprietary memory cards.

Vita's problems are few good exclusive games and a smaller market interested in dedicated handhelds (also the fact that psp had software selling problems outside Japan). Otherwise it's simply one of the best platforms ever created. Neither of vita's main problems should apply to ps4 so I think Sony has definitely learned their lesson.

 

[wsippel]

Thanks! How difficult do you think it is for a developer to go from visual studio to multi?

No idea, never used either one.

 

[Ashes]

They'll either have to compromise or disable the feature. Which really means that any developers who don't care to do much with the pad screen, those most concerned with multiplatform, are in the best position to support the whole-game-on-controller feature.

Yeah, but it's also a good example of showing up a day late and a dollar short. Even letting that dollar short remain--what if it wasn't a day late? Change nothing in how X360 or PS3 performed but trade their launch dates, and PS3 becomes single-platform market leader until 2008, is a much stronger #2 for the following years, and X360 is stuck with ~20% hardware market share (or sub-40% HD market share).

I think the lesson to be learned from N64 and PS3 is to not make a horrible screwup (carts, price) and give your competitors big lead time to capitalize on it.

Do you have an updated graph with 2012 included?

 

[Vanillalite]

Thanks! How difficult do you think it is for a developer to go from visual studio to multi?

Depends. A lot of this stuff is already done for you if you go with a already created engine like say Unreal or Frostbite. It also depends on how much you plan on hardcoding for the systems innards.

Good thing is with the Wii-U bump to a modern arch all 3 systems should easily be able to run something similar in terms of Open-GL Version. MS obviously has their own Direct X (Direct 3d really) stuff for their console, pc, phone, and tablets, but it's similar so stuff can pretty easily get moved over to the D3D apis (Carmack talked about this in his Rage dev stuff).

More devs are getting use to Open-GL stuff too because iOS devices have support.

It's more about how easy it is to port between the APIs and how much people hardcode for the system innards verses porting code between different IDEs. Personally I'm an eclipse guy, but that's because I don't own a Mac (which seems to be the coder platform these days). I'm a coding n00b though.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Do you have an updated graph with 2012 included?

Think I've only got Nintendo's Q1 numbers in for 2012 right now, but since that image pretends X360 launches a year later its line would go further anyway.

 

[Ashes]

Dat kinect bump.

When comparing both graphs.

 

[Jokeropia]

Yes, it sold like gangbusters for the first few years, but the vast majority of the software sold on the system was by Nintendo.

That's not true at all. Total third party sales on Wii is way above total first party sales. It is true that no single third party game matches Nintendo's biggest games, but like Vinci said, this is true for any third party game on any platform. (Call of Duty comes close, but only if you combine all SKUs.)

 

[nincompoop]

That's not true at all. Total third party sales on Wii is way above total first party sales. It is true that no single third party game matches Nintendo's biggest games, but like Vinci said, this is true for any third party game on any platform. (Call of Duty comes close, but only if you combine all SKUs.)

I've given up trying to explain this to people. Idiots will believe what they want to believe, even in the face of facts which contradict their viewpoint. Reading these topics is like watching a debate on Fox News.

 

[Totobeni]

63% of developers who spoke to IGN said the Wii U would be the most challenging platform to develop for. One creator went as far as saying, “we won’t be working on Wii U due to these complexities,” while another lamented the difficulty of moving innovative games unique to Wii U to other platforms

huh...I "kinda" called it in the Metro thread

we just really wanted to focus on what we knew, focus on PS3, 360 and PC,"

That sound like Wii U is hard to port to.

 

[blu]

Except we don't know anything about the Wii U's architecture yet.Maybe the developers who do have the dev kits know more than we do.

So, developers with wiiU devkits don't intend to work on the wiiU.

Yeah.

 

[Jokeropia]

huh...I "kinda" called it in the Metro thread

Nowhere did anyone suggest that the Wii U is difficult to port to. The quote in the OP says that it's difficult to move "innovative games unique to Wii U" to other platforms (presumably referring to the touch screen), but that's not the same thing.

On the contrary, we've gotten specific comments from non-anonymous developers detailing how easy it was to port their games to Wii U.

 

[TheMan]

An IDE is the environment you develop software in. The most common IDEs are Visual Studio (Microsoft), Xcode (Apple) and Eclipse (open source). A toolchain is basically a set of applications to translate source code to something the machine actually understands and consists of compilers, linkers, assemblers, build systems, debuggers, profilers and the like (often hidden behind or part of an IDE). The most common toolchains are the one integrated in Visual Studio, the one integrated in Xcode, and the stand alone GNU toolchain (open source). For Wii U, Nintendo decided to go with the GHS MULTI IDE and toolchain, a rather exotic and expensive suite that is typically used in high reliability, high security embedded development (like medical, industrial and military applications). It's simply not a familiar environment for game developers, most of which most likely never even heard of GHS, which means that it requires additional training and education.

knowing what you know about GHS, what do you think was nintendo's motivation for choosing that toolchain over something that developers would find more familiar?

 

[bachikarn]

An IDE is the environment you develop software in. The most common IDEs are Visual Studio (Microsoft), Xcode (Apple) and Eclipse (open source). A toolchain is basically a set of applications to translate source code to something the machine actually understands and consists of compilers, linkers, assemblers, build systems, debuggers, profilers and the like (often hidden behind or part of an IDE). The most common toolchains are the one integrated in Visual Studio, the one integrated in Xcode, and the stand alone GNU toolchain (open source). For Wii U, Nintendo decided to go with the GHS MULTI IDE and toolchain, a rather exotic and expensive suite that is typically used in high reliability, high security embedded development (like medical, industrial and military applications). It's simply not a familiar environment for game developers, most of which most likely never even heard of GHS, which means that it requires additional training and education.

Do we know why Nintendo decided to go with this exotic IDE? I thought one of their original goals for the Wii U was to make it easy develop for. So it's weird to hear them do something like that.

 

[KageMaru]

Nowhere did anyone suggest that the Wii U is difficult to port to. The quote in the OP says that it's difficult to move "innovative games unique to Wii U" to other platforms (presumably referring to the touch screen), but that's not the same thing.

On the contrary, we've gotten specific comments from non-anonymous developers detailing how easy it was to port their games to Wii U.

Looking at the quotes in the OP, it clearly shows one developer commenting on the complexities of porting while another developer indicates it would be difficult to port innovative games from the Wii-U to other systems.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I think a quote from one developer is hardly a reason to throw a tantrum or a parade. The Wii U already has better initia third party support than either of Nintendo's past few consoles.

Projections of a generation winner are just that - projections. Everyone projected the PS3 would be number 1, and it didn't really work out that way. If MS royally screws something up with the 360s hardware/price/controller/interface/marketing, there could be plenty of betrayaltons next gen as well.

Until the PS4 and 720 are actual tangible things, it's hard to say who will sell best.

 

[Opiate]

"We won't be working on WiiU because we are too lazy to put a map screen on the controller."

You can say this, but this is not new and is not localized exclusively around Nintendo.

1) Neo Geo was far more powerful than the systems of its generation. The result? Very few games were made for it because ports weren't easy.
2) The 3D0 suffered the same fate as the Neo Geo for the same reasons, despite having massive backing from some major third parties.
3) The Wii missed out on many ports not just because of its relatively weak power, but because of its unique controller.
4) Now the Wii U might lose some ports because of its unique controller as well.
5) Saturn is another example. Most portables don't get console ports. Many PC strategy games aren't made for consoles because the input method is so different. The list goes on.

This is simple math, really. If there are four systems on the market -- we'll call them A,B,C and D -- and A/B/C are all generally comparable and easy to work between such that I can easily treat them as a single, unified platform, while D is quite different in some major ways then D is going to lose out in most cases, even if D is very popular and well liked by many consumers. It doesn't really matter how it's different; history shows that if a platform is much more powerful, much less powerful, has a much different controller, or has much different architecture than its present day peers, it's going to struggle getting support.

It is unfortunate, but this is one of the primary reasons Microsoft and Sony tend to play it very safe with their hardware design; making something unique and different is very risky not just because you risk losing consumer interest, but because you risk losing developer interest, as well.

 

[KageMaru]

This is simple math, really. If there are four systems on the market -- we'll call them A,B,C and D -- and A/B/C are all generally comparable and easy to work between such that I can easily treat them as a single, unified platform, while D is quite different in some major ways then D is going to lose out in most cases, even if D is very popular and well liked by many consumers.

And this is exactly what I meant when I said most publishers saw PS3/360/PC as one large pool, even though the Wii sold more than the other 2 consoles.

Hopefully people will magically understand it now that it's coming from you =P

 

[cyberheater]

So WiiU is fucked before it was even launched?

 

[Opiate]

And this is exactly what I meant when I said most publishers saw PS3/360/PC as one large pool, even though the Wii sold more than the other 2 consoles.

Hopefully people will magically understand it now that it's coming from you =P

It's not an especially complex idea, but I think people don't want to hear it so will argue against it anyway in some cases.

Just keep in mind that I am not at all suggesting this is a good thing; it is, essentially, a very strong disincentive for hardware makers to be creative, different, or quirky with their hardware. Instead, there is strong pressure to conform and be "normal" and "traditional" so that developers will add you in to the "multiplatform pot," if you will.

But just because it's unfortunate doesn't mean it isn't a real phenomena or that is likely to change. There are lots of things about reality I don't like, and in comparison this is a pretty insignificant issue.

 

[rpmurphy]

An IDE is the environment you develop software in. The most common IDEs are Visual Studio (Microsoft), Xcode (Apple) and Eclipse (open source). A toolchain is basically a set of applications to translate source code to something the machine actually understands and consists of compilers, linkers, assemblers, build systems, debuggers, profilers and the like (often hidden behind or part of an IDE). The most common toolchains are the one integrated in Visual Studio, the one integrated in Xcode, and the stand alone GNU toolchain (open source). For Wii U, Nintendo decided to go with the GHS MULTI IDE and toolchain, a rather exotic and expensive suite that is typically used in high reliability, high security embedded development (like medical, industrial and military applications). It's simply not a familiar environment for game developers, most of which most likely never even heard of GHS, which means that it requires additional training and education.

Reading about MULTI, the DoubleCheck analyzer sounds like something that Nintendo would want to use to maintain the security of the console. What IDE does the industry typically use to develop game code? VS?

 

[Kunan]

Reading about MULTI, the DoubleCheck analyzer sounds like something that Nintendo would want to use to maintain the security of the console. What IDE does the industry typically use to develop game code? VS?

Yes. Visual Studio.

 

[TheOddOne]

You can say this, but this is not new and is not localized exclusively around Nintendo.

1) Neo Geo was far more powerful than the systems of its generation. The result? Very few games were made for it because ports weren't easy.
2) The 3D0 suffered the same fate as the Neo Geo for the same reasons, despite having massive backing from some major third parties.
3) The Wii missed out on many ports not just because of its relatively weak power, but because of its unique controller.
4) Now the Wii U might lose some ports because of its unique controller as well.
5) Saturn is another example. Most portables don't get console ports. Many PC strategy games aren't made for consoles because the input method is so different. The list goes on.

This is simple math, really. If there are four systems on the market -- we'll call them A,B,C and D -- and A/B/C are all generally comparable and easy to work between such that I can easily treat them as a single, unified platform, while D is quite different in some major ways then D is going to lose out in most cases, even if D is very popular and well liked by many consumers. It doesn't really matter how it's different; history shows that if a platform is much more powerful, much less powerful, has a much different controller, or has much different architecture than its present day peers, it's going to struggle getting support.

It is unfortunate, but this is one of the primary reasons Microsoft and Sony tend to play it very safe with their hardware design; making something unique and different is very risky not just because you risk losing consumer interest, but because you risk losing developer interest, as well.

Well put, could not agree more.

 

[TheMan]

You can say this, but this is not new and is not localized exclusively around Nintendo.

1) Neo Geo was far more powerful than the systems of its generation. The result? Very few games were made for it because ports weren't easy.
2) The 3D0 suffered the same fate as the Neo Geo for the same reasons, despite having massive backing from some major third parties.
3) The Wii missed out on many ports not just because of its relatively weak power, but because of its unique controller.
4) Now the Wii U might lose some ports because of its unique controller as well.
5) Saturn is another example. Most portables don't get console ports. Many PC strategy games aren't made for consoles because the input method is so different. The list goes on.

points 3-5, ok. as for points 1 and 2, wouldn't you say that their relatively poor support really stemmed from ludicrous prices and thus lower sales? I guess more powerful hardware is what resulted in the increased expense, but i don't see how more power in and of itself led to less developer support.

 

[Indyana]

You can say this, but this is not new and is not localized exclusively around Nintendo.

1) Neo Geo was far more powerful than the systems of its generation. The result? Very few games were made for it because ports weren't easy.
2) The 3D0 suffered the same fate as the Neo Geo for the same reasons, despite having massive backing from some major third parties.
3) The Wii missed out on many ports not just because of its relatively weak power, but because of its unique controller.
4) Now the Wii U might lose some ports because of its unique controller as well.
5) Saturn is another example. Most portables don't get console ports. Many PC strategy games aren't made for consoles because the input method is so different. The list goes on.

I can't even understand how you can make the third point. There's no way that the Wiimote stopped more ports than Wii's architecture. No way.

And the fourth point is just a stretch. Because they don't need to use the screen. So it's a classical controller.

 

[Vanillalite]

Reading about MULTI, the DoubleCheck analyzer sounds like something that Nintendo would want to use to maintain the security of the console. What IDE does the industry typically use to develop game code? VS?

Yes. Visual Studio.

That's not entirely true. They use VS on the 360 cause MS gives it away with their dev kits.

The PS3 can use VS, but ProDG by Snsys is the official Sony Tool Set.

This isn't even talking PS Vita, 3ds, Wii, or iPhone/iPad.

 

[Opiate]

points 3-5, ok. as for points 1 and 2, wouldn't you say that their relatively poor support really stemmed from ludicrous prices and thus lower sales? I guess more powerful hardware is what resulted in the increased expense, but i don't see how more power in and of itself led to less developer support.

It definitely did. Any games made for the system would have needed to be up-ported -- as customers weren't interested in buying games with SNES graphics on a system much more powerful -- and the cost was a significant inhibitor.

Obviously selling very well can help alleviate some problems (I'm sure the Wii would have been in even worse shape had it sold 20M instead of 100M units), but "too powerful" is very much a problem.

I can't even understand how you can make the third point. There's no way that the Wiimote stopped more ports than Wii's architecture. No way.

I didn't say otherwise -- I'm not sure how you concluded I did. I said both were significant factors, not that one was more important than the other. I agree, the latter issue is more significant than the former if we need to "rank" problems, but that really wasn't my original point and is irrelevant to the larger conversation.

 

[Saint Gregory]

It is unfortunate, but this is one of the primary reasons Microsoft and Sony tend to play it very safe with their hardware design; making something unique and different is very risky not just because you risk losing consumer interest, but because you risk losing developer interest, as well.

I was mostly agreeing with your post until this point. Let's be honest here, Sony's hardware designs up until the Vita were developer nightmares which is a big reason why so many Wii U supporters in this thread are up in arms about these comments. Of course that only applies if the developer in question was talking about the U's hardware design and not its development environment. It would have been nice if IGN could have clarified that.

Also, MS and Sony playing it safe as far as control input seems to have a lot more to do with them not having a lot of great new ideas in these areas moreso than keeping consumer/developer interest.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Microsoft has shown its strengths as a software company this generation. Xbox Live, regardless of the gold/free tiers, is the best online system available and the 360 was a breeze to develop for compared to the PS3. The PS3 had a very schizophrenic hardware system and was difficult to develop for. It will have to be seen if MS can legitimately be successful in Japan the next gen.

I know ppl counted them out last gen because the PS3 was expected to ride the coattails of the PS2. But being remotely successful in Japan is highly suspect. The only way I see it happening is if nextbox takes an even bigger marketshare of Europe and USA, that basically will turn more heads elsewhere, but it will still be underdog by a big margin in Japan.

Microsoft and Sony tend to play it very safe with their hardware design; making something unique and different is very risky not just because you risk losing consumer interest, but because you risk losing developer interest, as well.

They need not make something exotic to work with. Just boost the power (memory etc.) to something interesting.

I'd hate for this gen be repeated where both of them are basically on parity with devs just porting games over to the other. Same old shit, nothing really different between the two.

 

[Ryoku]

You can say this, but this is not new and is not localized exclusively around Nintendo.

1) Neo Geo was far more powerful than the systems of its generation. The result? Very few games were made for it because ports weren't easy.
2) The 3D0 suffered the same fate as the Neo Geo for the same reasons, despite having massive backing from some major third parties.
3) The Wii missed out on many ports not just because of its relatively weak power, but because of its unique controller.
4) Now the Wii U might lose some ports because of its unique controller as well.

5) Saturn is another example. Most portables don't get console ports. Many PC strategy games aren't made for consoles because the input method is so different. The list goes on.

Regarding points 1 and 2, it was also price. NeoGeo cost 650 bucks, and 3D0 600. This is why they didn't sell well at all, which resulted in the lack of support, regardless of ease of development.

About point 3, you are blatantly wrong. The Wii did not receive ports because of its outdated hardware, not because of its controller. It does not have modern feature sets that the HD twins have. You'd literally have to develop a separate version for Wii ground-up, which isn't cost-effective. CoD made it onto Wii because they can take the hit of the added cost, for example, even though the controller is different.

4. Wii U will have a modern architecture given it has modern hardware inside it. The controller is a traditional controller with an added screen and other features that do not need to be used if the developers dont want to use them. This has been stated already. It's not because of the controller, at all. And I doubt it's abour architecture, either.

5. Why did this need to be brought up? The market for hardcore strategy games is not on the consoles. It's on PC. I can't imagine using anything other than a keyboard/mouse for Starcraft.

 

[Indyana]

I didn't say otherwise -- I'm not sure how you concluded I did. I said both were significant factors, not that one was more important than the other. I agree, the latter issue is more significant than the former if we need to "rank" problems, but that really wasn't my original point and is irrelevant to the larger conversation.

Ok, I understood you poorly.

 

[aeolist]

For myself this really doesn't matter, all the multiplatform games I want are on PC and are far better there. Wii U will be for Nintendo games when it hits $250-300, and I don't trust third parties on their platforms anyway.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Regarding points 1 and 2, it was also price. NeoGeo cost 650 bucks, and 3D0 600. This is why they didn't sell well at all, which resulted in the lack of support, regardless of ease of development.

About point 3, you are blatantly wrong. The Wii did not receive ports because of its outdated hardware, not because of its controller. It does not have modern feature sets that the HD twins have. You'd literally have to develop a separate version for Wii ground-up, which isn't cost-effective. CoD made it onto Wii because they can take the hit of the added cost, for example, even though the controller is different.

4. Wii U will have a modern architecture given it has modern hardware inside it. The controller is a traditional controller with an added screen and other features that do not need to be used if the developers dont want to use them. This has been stated already. It's not because of the controller, at all. And I doubt it's abour architecture, either.

5. Why did this need to be brought up? The market for hardcore strategy games is not on the consoles. It's on PC. I can't imagine using anything other than a keyboard/mouse for Starcraft.

Idk how you can say the Wiimote isn't a factor in why the Wii doesn't get alot of ports of traditional games.

 

[Stinkles]

Regarding points 1 and 2, it was also price. NeoGeo cost 650 bucks, and 3D0 600. This is why they didn't sell well at all, which resulted in the lack of support, regardless of ease of development.

About point 3, you are blatantly wrong. The Wii did not receive ports because of its outdated hardware, not because of its controller. It does not have modern feature sets that the HD twins have. You'd literally have to develop a separate version for Wii ground-up, which isn't cost-effective. CoD made it onto Wii because they can take the hit of the added cost, for example, even though the controller is different.

4. Wii U will have a modern architecture given it has modern hardware inside it. The controller is a traditional controller with an added screen and other features that do not need to be used if the developers dont want to use them. This has been stated already. It's not because of the controller, at all. And I doubt it's abour architecture, either.

5. Why did this need to be brought up? The market for hardcore strategy games is not on the consoles. It's on PC. I can't imagine using anything other than a keyboard/mouse for Starcraft.

Neo Geo was literally the best selling device of its kind. Of all time. Can't be legitimately compared to other consoles.

 

[Opiate]

Regarding points 1 and 2, it was also price. NeoGeo cost 650 bucks, and 3D0 600. This is why they didn't sell well at all, which resulted in the lack of support, regardless of ease of development.

Price of hardware does not effect developer support directly. It affects customer support, which can then affect developer support indirectly. What I am saying is that Neo Geo's problems went much deeper than just not selling well because of its price. Again, this isn't really a difficult concept; Neo Geo users would have wanted the games to be improved graphically in some way, as they didn't buy a Neo Geo to play games with SNES graphics. Improving the games would have cost money. Developers don't like having to spend extra money. That is a very simple concept.

About point 3, you are blatantly wrong. The Wii did not receive ports because of its outdated hardware, not because of its controller.

This is wrong. Here are lots of other games which have never been ported because of interface issues:

1) Almost every RTS ever made; never ported from PC
2) Most "twitch" or skill based FPS: same
3) Trauma Center: never ported to "traditional" controllers.
4) Kinect: a huge wealth of games have never been ported to kinect because of interface translation issues.

If you want more examples, I can come up with them. It's a common problem that surely affected Wii support as well.

It does not have modern feature sets that the HD twins have. You'd literally have to develop a separate version for Wii ground-up, which isn't cost-effective. CoD made it onto Wii because they can take the hit of the added cost, for example, even though the controller is different.

Correct. There can be two problems simultaneously -- you understand that, right? The fact that the Wii had a different power level does not stop the controller from being different too. Both were different and historically both have caused problems for developers.

4. Wii U will have a modern architecture given it has modern hardware inside it. The controller is a traditional controller with an added screen and other features that do not need to be used if the developers dont want to use them. This has been stated already. It's not because of the controller, at all. And I doubt it's abour architecture, either.

So what are these developers complaining about in this thread? Honest question. If it's not the architecture, and it's not the controller, then what is it?

5. Why did this need to be brought up? The market for hardcore strategy games is not on the consoles. It's on PC. I can't imagine using anything other than a keyboard/mouse for Starcraft.

You want examples of games which are not ported because the interface translation is too complex. FPS games were also once a PC only fare: that changed because developers worked hard and created a reasonable translation of the inputs. It isn't something that happened instantly or overnight, however.

 

[Lonely1]

3) The Wii missed out on many ports not just because of its relatively weak power, but because of its unique controller.

But that's why Nintendo this time made a super set of the Dual Shock baseline we have been stuck with for more than 15 years... over an actually superior alternative (for the most popular genre).

 

[bomma_man]

I'm not sure that any examples prior to the PS2 gen are particularly relevant because the lack of need to do ports. A lot has changed since then. Third parties understandably bet on the HD twins due to the inertia of Sony and the money of MS. Unless I'm missing something I don't know why they have the same assumptions this gen.

 

[Stinkles]

And the fourth point is just a stretch. Because they don't need to use the screen. So it's a classical controller.

it is? :-/ I personally think it looks interesting but it's neither normal nor classic by any conventional definition.

 

[aeolist]

So I guess this is the IDE they're using? http://www.ghs.com/products/MULTI_IDE.html

From the marketing bullet points it's heavily focused on small, heavily optimized code and debugging. I guess it helps that it supposedly has good global support, so Japanese and EU devs should be OK.

The MULTI IDE's tight integration with a broad array of third-party tools provides you with maximum flexibility and choice. You can optimize your own development environment—invoking your favorite tools, editor, or configuration management system all from within the MULTI environment. MULTI can even be used with your existing Eclipse environment.

It'll be interesting to see if devs are allowed to talk about this more after next week. I'd like to know how different/difficult this IDE is really.

At the very least the more modern architecture should make things easier.

 

[RagnarokX]

This applies to the 3DS too. Those games get more and more alike the Gamecube and Wii games.

Nah, Nintendo is much better at marketing 3DS as a unique experience. The 3D without glasses is a key element of that. I also think they keep the power a certain distance from current platforms not only to keep price in check but also to ensure unique experiences. For example, GBA and DS became a haven for games that were considered too risky for higher-budget console games like sidescrolling platformers.

To use the example of Mario Kart 7 that another poster thought I was talking about, MK7 presents itself as a unique and advanced iteration of the franchise, a true sequel. Vita, on the other hand, has Modnation Racers: Road Trip, which is essentially the PS3 game ported over with some minor enhanced level-editing features that are completely negated by the lack of online racing.

You can say this, but this is not new and is not localized exclusively around Nintendo.

1) Neo Geo was far more powerful than the systems of its generation. The result? Very few games were made for it because ports weren't easy.
2) The 3D0 suffered the same fate as the Neo Geo for the same reasons, despite having massive backing from some major third parties.
3) The Wii missed out on many ports not just because of its relatively weak power, but because of its unique controller.
4) Now the Wii U might lose some ports because of its unique controller as well.
5) Saturn is another example. Most portables don't get console ports. Many PC strategy games aren't made for consoles because the input method is so different. The list goes on.

This is simple math, really. If there are four systems on the market -- we'll call them A,B,C and D -- and A/B/C are all generally comparable and easy to work between such that I can easily treat them as a single, unified platform, while D is quite different in some major ways then D is going to lose out in most cases, even if D is very popular and well liked by many consumers. It doesn't really matter how it's different; history shows that if a platform is much more powerful, much less powerful, has a much different controller, or has much different architecture than its present day peers, it's going to struggle getting support.

It is unfortunate, but this is one of the primary reasons Microsoft and Sony tend to play it very safe with their hardware design; making something unique and different is very risky not just because you risk losing consumer interest, but because you risk losing developer interest, as well.

I never said it was unique to Nintendo. It is a uniquely stupid excuse in this situation, though, because, for all intensive porpoises, the upad IS a 360/PS3 controller with extra features on top of all of the buttons the other consoles have and there is no mandate that they have to use any of those extras. At the very least a punch of ports of PS3/360 games from over the years should be quick cash grabs; just look at RE4 Wii. There may be difficulty downporting after PS4/720 come out, but that would have nothing to do with the controller.

 

[mugurumakensei]

it is? :-/ I personally think it looks interesting but it's neither normal nor classic by any conventional definition.

it's two clickable analog sticks with 2-4 analog shoulder buttons, 4 face buttons, start, select, and a d-pad. In that regard, it is normal controller (albeit a wide one).

 

[bomma_man]

it is? :-/ I personally think it looks interesting but it's neither normal nor classic by any conventional definition.

How isn't it? If you ignore the screen it is a 6th/7th gen controller with different stick placement. Unfortunately.

EDIT: also the "normal" "traditional" "Classic" controller whine is just as intellectually bankrupt as the "traditional" marriage argument as far as I'm concerned.

PS i enjoy you're posts in the OT

I'm too drunk to go on.