freezamite
Banned
Hey, it's not Nintendo's fault that you can't understand why having two independent screens change the way of gaming even more than having motion controls...
-
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.
Iwata on third parties, hundreds of inquiries since GDC about Nintendo Web Framework
- Thread starter Hobby
- Start date
No, it is Nintendo's fault. The thing isn't selling for a reason.
They haven't shown how having two independent screens change the way of gaming even more than having motion controls. Either that or people does not care, so shinra-bansho is still right.
shinra-bansho
Member
I can understand the concept perfectly well. Look touch screen! Look two screens!! Look asymmetric gameplayTM!!! But like the rest of the world, Nintendo hasn't provided a reason for me or anyone else to care or shown how it has "changed the way of gaming." (Probably because it hasn't, and your statement is nonsense, but that aside). Ergo the market's response has been:
freezamite
Banned
Yes, if you were speaking in terms of the general consumer perspective then you're right, nintendo has failed to transmit the potential of the device.I can understand the concept perfectly well. Look touch screen! Look two screens!! Look asymmetric gameplayTM!!! But like the rest of the world, Nintendo hasn't provided a reason for me or anyone else to care or shown how it has "changed the way of gaming." (Probably because it hasn't, and your statement is nonsense, but that aside). Ergo the market's response has been:
I thought you were speaking in absolute terms, I mean, saying that the wiiU gamepad was just an iphone wannabe.
GTAIV is a bad example: open world, and no real cut scenes.
Who cares what's logical, were talking about marketing here. A company releases a *new* more *expensive* console with games that do not look or play any differently than what already exists on 7 year old machines that cost less.*
It has been said literally hundreds of times on gaf, and backed up by thousands of screenshoots and youtube videos: PS3/X360 showed a very large and very noticeable jump in image quality compared to PS2/xbox1. It is a fact. It did not take until year 7 of the ps360 for that jump to be noticeable, it was day 1. The fact that the wii u does not show this obvious jump, means nintendo cannot use that as a marketing tool, which means less sales. The potential power of the console means nothing if their is nothing to show consumers.
And of course Nintendo knows this, that's why there is no Ninty E3. What would they show to consumers to get them excited? Like it or not, all they could show is games that look like what we've seen for the last 7 years. This would hurt the wii u's sales, no matter how fun or how much the games took advantage of the gamepad tablet. Their bowing out of E3 in terms of no public presser is an admission that whatever it is they have ready isn't salable to the general public. That's why they are only going to be showing it to Nintendo fans via Directs.
*Yes, I know, Nintendoland is supposed to be the asynchronous hook proving how different the console is, but it is a single game. And it is a minigame collection, how many people got burnt on wii minigame collections?
Refreshment.01
Member
I liked this part:
It is amazing how he puts in the inexpensive category say... a game like Zelda, which it's latest entry of the series enjoyed a 4 years development cycle, a reworking and quite a bit of R&D. "Dude Skyward Sword was made with the standard Double Fine development budget!"
Also curiously the games that don't fit into the "bad developers bad!" vicious cycle are all Nintendo games. XD
mentalfloss
Banned
It's because at face value, people already own/know about ipads.
But the WiiU controller (aside from button triggers and stick placement for some people) is the best controller for gaming.
Pretty much yeah. All 3rd parties wanted the N64 to have CDs for many good reasons and Nintendo refused to accomadate.
The Gamecube I think was a great system in terms of 3rd party friendliness, it's just the PS2 was so so dominant than it wasn't really worth it for 3rd parties to target anything other than the Sony machine (PS2 dominance was like a NES level stranglehold).
The Wii? 3rd parties just weren't able to include the Wii in their PS3/360 port plans because of the very underpowered hardware and especially the completely non standard controller. Hell it took them a few years to grapple with the weird unfriendly PS3 hardware just to get port parity, reworking a traditional game's control scheme to fit the Wiimote on the other hand is an impossible challenge..
Wii U is not using completely new hardware that devs need to adapt to like PS3 and 360. DX10 AMD GPUs and Broadway cores must be extremely well documented by now (though Nintendo's own documentation was bad at launch).
Do you know what you're talking about?
shinra-bansho
Member
What about the Wii U's hardware would be particularly foreign to game developers in 2012? It's not really the same as getting to grips with things like programmable shaders and Cell broadband engines etc. etc. afaik.
There's the rub.
It doesn't matter if Nintendo thought of this a decade ago.
It doesn't matter if the main purpose of the screen was to provide a second screen and not to provide touch input.
It doesn't matter if the intent is in no way resultant from the growth and success enjoyed by the iOS and Android boom. (Although, I seriously doubt that there's no link whatsoever.)
A person who sees it will intuitively perceive it as such. And that perception is ultimately going to stick far more than any elaborate explanations of what one is supposed to think about it.
Nintendo doesn't use off-the-shelf parts, a toolchain no game developer has ever even heard of, and the SDK was buggy and incomplete. And most console developers are used to ppc64 chips with VMX and DX9 level GPUs. Not to mention most high profile studios don't have developers with lots of experience on Nintendo systems to begin with.
That's true, though I was focusing on the "they don't have to adapt to it". Though re-reading that sentence now makes me realize I misinterpreted it.
Sorry NBtoaster.
the people over in the wii u gpu thread can't seem to find a match yet so i don't know why you think this is so easy. it's a custom chip, nothing we've seen yet. we don't even know if it's dx10 or not. could be dx11 for all we know
Refreshment.01
Member
As traditional controllers go and feature wise? Yea, it is but it suits a platform that gets an ample stable of games. SO basically the Wii U console is a poor companion for the U gamepad. It's a bit contradictory XD
Yet, Shinra is correct, as well as many other had been saying for years, Upad is not as atractive as the Wii Remote ever was.
Are you talking about casuals? If you are, then no controller would be as attractive as Kinect or a device that uses a touchscreen only to operate.
frankie_baby
Member
shovel knight wasn't a stetch goal it was planned from the start (though not announced for a few days)
if a game is made in unity (which many indie games are) i believe porting to wii u is little more than paying a one of fee for a dev kit (about 2 grand) and then clicking the compile to wii u button
Shovel Knight was more expensive if you wanted a Wii U version because Nintendo charges devs for codes.
They only charge for the SDK. They don't charge devs for anything else.
Maybe I worded myself poorly. From their Kickstarter page:
"We must pay for each Nintendo download code given out. This is the biggest reason"
frankie_baby
Member
they do charge devs for codes if they want to give away their games (eg. to kickstarter backers) i would assume they charge whatever nintendo's cut would be
Refreshment.01
Member
The word "traditional" in my previous post speaks for itself. The comparison was between a 2 handed traditional controlers, like say a Dual Shock and the WIi U gamepad. For the people that prefer that type of control setup the Wii U one would be the ultimate evolution of such type of inputs. Leaving fantacial and capricious behaviour aside of course.
HA HA. You fell for their marketing tactics and now feel bad. It was only there to say the thing was checked to work with their systems.
To be fair, the reasoning that the Wii U hasn't demonstrated dramatically more powerful hardware because we haven't seen it manifest in any of its available games isn't circular thinking. You may think it's far too early to make that call, and you'd be right, but pretending it has demonstrated substantially improved visual quality compared to less expensive seven and eight-year-old console hardware isn't borne out by any tangible reality.
Not a fan of WiiU, but this wouldn't be that bad. The games market is very homogenous right now and giving exposure to devs from countries without big development traditions would be intesting.
So much fucking this! 3rd parties are done, it's up to Nintendo to pick up the slack and fill in the genre gaps. There is no fucking excuse.
[/B]
So much fucking this! 3rd parties are done, it's up to Nintendo to pick up the slack and fill in the genre gaps. There is no fucking excuse.
Yup. 100%
This is why Nintendo should publish their own exclusive FPS. Shooters are big in North America, and if my choice is between COD and Halo on Xbox, COD and Killzone on Playstation, or just a COD port on Nintendo....I know what system the shooters aren't going for.
WrenchNinja
Member
No, Im being sarcastic. I dont believe a word you're saying.
Yep, and I will accept no excuses from Nintendo fans on this because the Dreamcast did just that, fill in genre gaps with 1st party efforts. Just another reason Dreamcast comparisons to the Wii-U make me sick.
Wii-U is not even remotely on the Dreamcast's level in soooo many ways. Nintendo needs to ironically enough take a few notes from the Dreamcast in order to appeal to core gamers.
While I agree in general, that's still a risky approach. If their hypothetical FPS isn't absolutely amazing, it won't have any effect. But if it is, and has an effect, we'll get the "we can't compete with Nintendo on Nintendo systems" bullshit.
Problem is that Sega, with all the effort they put in, still effectively appealed to pretty much nobody - core gamers or otherwise - and had to pull the plug.
Nah, they did everything right with the Genesis and Dreamcast. They are blueprints for any console too follow. Good price, agressive advertising, and having the games...
This is only true with their 1st party japanese line-up (Jet Set, Space Channel, Shenmue). Overall with 3rd party, even without EA, and their 2K Sports games, they had a good selection of games appealing to a variety of people.
Pretty much the only attempts at getting the First Person side of things was with Metroid Prime series and Geist on GV. And Geist did awful.
Though Nintendo should try and pump out some more new RPGs though, We've got X waiting in the wings, but even Nintendo focuses more of their RPG efforts on the Handheld front.
I'm not so sure.
I mean, look at Wii Sports. When Nintendo sold gangbusters of Wii Sports and Wii Fit 3rd parties didn't shy away from the casual market because of Nintendo, they pumped the Wii with "me too" software because Nintendo proved there was a market for it.
I think the problem isn't that 3rd parties feel they can't compete with Nintendo games period. I think the issue is 3rd parties feel they can't compete with Nintendo FRANCHISES. And this is a belief Nintendo does nothing to alleviate when they tie all of their major console releases into their legacy brands. Can we blame 3rd parties for believing Nintendo gamers only want Mario/Zelda/Metroid until the end of time? Nintendo seems to feel the same way.
If Iwata has any sense left, Retro's working on a new IP. And if they are, and if Nintendo pushes it, and it inevitably sells millions of copies (because as much as Nintendo fans bitch we would all cream our pants at the sight of a new AAA mascot IP from Nintendo and day 1 that shit), I think it would send a strong message to 3rd parties that Nintendo gamers would buy their beat efforts on a Nintendo platform.
Father_Brain
Banned
Sad thing is, even if Retro's new game actually is a new IP aimed at the MS/Sony Western core audience as some of the rumors would have it, it'll be too little, too late, and I'd be shocked if it were actually a commercial success. If Nintendo actually wanted to pursue that market, they needed to do it from day one, not a year or more into the platform's lifespan when they'll be competing with not two, but four consoles that are much better targeted at that demographic.
Refreshment.01
Member
It seems they did give it a shot and didn't like the performance they were getting.
Given the engine doesn't run so hot on PC dual cores and needs a hard drive install on Xbox 360 to not look like ass, and honestly doesn't run super well on the 360/PS3 in general, this probably isn't overly surprising.
The original conversation between Frostbite Technical Director repi and Teletuby Hitler is as follows:
Source: https://twitter.com/repi/status/331549012022927360
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57005730&postcount=1
(^_-)
But the WiiSports/Fit/Resort stuff was a franchise. And there are 3rd parties that have tried to compete with the World of Warcraft and Call of Duty franchises. Why should Nintendo be so special?
Only if that million selling game fit their notions of what should sell on a Nintendo platform. I bet if it was a fps it would be reasoned that that game already had all the few fps Nintendo gamers locked up and another game in the same vein would be fighting a losing battle. Like putting a platformer on a Nintendo system.