the fuck are you talking about physical distrubution dying lol
people still buy dvds by the bucketload, it's just blu-ray that hasn't taken off that well.
Printable View
the fuck are you talking about physical distrubution dying lol
people still buy dvds by the bucketload, it's just blu-ray that hasn't taken off that well.
And it's not just DVDs, Hell Gamestop/Walmart/Target/Whatever alone stands to lose a ton of money if shit goes digital on everything. Do you THINK Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo WANT to piss off retailers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gogogadget
"Here we're bringing out a new system!"
"Great what games are we stocking with it?"
"Oh there's no physical copies of games. It's all digital now!"
"Wait, So you want us to sell game systems with no physical games?"
"Of course! Think of all the shelf space you guys will have now with just systems in it!"
"So what about our huge market in selling new & used software? We won't be hardly making money anymore!!"
"Not our problem!!"
That right there among other reasons is why solid state media is going nowhere. You're more or less telling game companies among other things to fuck over any possible profits for retailers when they're selling new & used games. Please don't post like you know what you're talking about in terms of solid state media dying off.
Who sees Trekkies making another stupid bitchfest about physical and digital products?
I mentioned something about getting a CD the other day, and my friend was like, "people still buy CDs?" Of course he was being snarky, but the average consumer doesn't buy CDs anymore. CDs still sell enough that they keep making them, but they're no longer the majority of the market. The same thing is happening with movies, it's just not as far along yet. The difference in bandwidth is what caused music to go digital first. Now that's subsided, and the main issue is the large number of movies that aren't available digitally. That will change, just as it did with music.
Once again, the argument is about MOVIES NOT GAMES! It is happening with games, but at a much slower rate, with the exception for PC and Mobile.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonusKun
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...06440621142958Quote:
Originally Posted by Gogogadget
They buy digital even more. The DVD and BluRay market has been shrinking for years now.
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonusKun
I'm not going to. I'm asking YOU to go make one if you want to discuss it. This isn't the thread for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sull56ivan2010
Derailing threads is a Sega-16 staple. You can't break tradition now.
Guys, please take the digital vs. physical distribution to another thread. This is for Wii U discussion.
Just a reminder everyone. The Wii U Digital Deluxe Promotion ends tonight. If you have a Deluxe Wii U (32GB Model) you're automatically enrolled. Go to this site and sign in with your Nintendo Network ID and see what your point balance is.
https://p.nintendo.net/deluxe/
Basically for every 500 points you get, you get a $5 gift card for the eshop. You'll still be able to redeem these until March of this year, but points stop accumulating tonight. So log in and see if you're only a dollar or so short from a gift card. If you've been buying stuff on the eshop for a while, you may have a few gift cards laying around. Free games from club Nintendo, WWHD bundle, Mariokart 8 promotion, etc. all count.
There were 70+ million PS3 owners and another 70+ million 360 owners when the trilogy was released. The 620k units sold between the 2 consoles (if we are to go by the numbers you posted) doesn't even register 1/2% of those console's users buying that trilogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
While 1% of Wii U owners bought ME3 in the 1st month.
And my point was that there's a good percentage of the Wii U user-base that doesn't know anything about software being released on other consoles, but the one they own. They probably don't ever read reviews.Quote:
Not the majority? Remember, my argument was the majority of Wii U owners, not all Wii U owners.
Your eShop stats show that 30% of the console's user-base doesn't even use the service.
Sega was announcing there exclusive deal with Midway at E3 that year. Then at Sony's press conference the MK Trilogy was announced.Quote:
1) When was it announced that Trilogy was coming out?
My point was that this sort of thing happens all of the time. What happened with the Wii U's 3rd party games is no different.Quote:
2) By saying Sega got hosed if anything you're reinforcing my point. Announcing a better deal before another similar competing product comes out is going to have a detrimental effect on the competing product's sales. Your personal experience of buying the game is irrelevant.
I bought UMK3, because I wanted to show support for Saturn 3rd party games. I also owned a Playstation, but chose not to purchase MK Trilogy when it came out.
Yeah, but the Wii U could have had a much better online community, if they didn't drag their feet for 2 generations. The Gamecube should of had more than a couple of games that had online play. The goofy friends code thing with the Wii turned off a lot of online game players. PSN and LIVE work just fine, and have been for quite some time. It's just another example of Nintendo trying to blaze their own path, without regard for the gaming community's thoughts on how they are going about their business.Quote:
That's not what I meant. I'm not even sure if there were technical network issues with Ghosts and Black Ops 2 on Wii U. The network issue I meant is that Wii U, PC, XBL, and PSN players can't play together. While yes this is a duh observation, it is important. Fans of Call of Duty who own a Wii U and a 360/PS3/PS4/Xbox One have a choice to make. But the version where they can play with their friends, or buy the version where they can play on the Wii U. Most are going to pick friends over Wii U. That's an uphill battle that's pretty much un-winnable at this point. The only way to get around this is to make it so everyone can play together, which most likely won't be happening anytime soon.
Where are you getting that 1 million number from? The numbers you had posted earlier showed that the Trilogy had only sold 620k between the 360 and PS3, and that more than likely included the price drop down to $30, which would equal about $10 per chapter.Quote:
Again, that's not necessarily true. I had a 360 that whole time and I never played any of them until I picked up the Wii U port of 3 for $10. When you combine all the sales of the Trilogy it's close to about 1 million, so obviously about 1 million people didn't play it. If you missed the first one or two games, jumping into the third one is discouraging knowing that all the games build on each other, and without the trilogy you have to buy all three separately. The Trilogy was a nice cheap bundle for those people. Those same people EA was aiming at with the Wii U release of 3.
The Trilogy release hurt the sales of ME3 on the Wii U. There's no denying that.
I had already played ME1 and ME2 on the 360. I had enough games on my backlog, that I skipped on buying ME3 on either the PS3, or 360, and waited to purchase the trilogy on the PS3. So, you're telling me that you would have purchased the trilogy on day 1 for the Wii U, but never even bothered to play any of the chapters on the 360. Why would having it on the Wii U have been a more enticing purchase for you, when you didn't even bother to play it on the console it was developed for?
And that happened a lot on the Wii as well. Why should it be any different for the Wii U, when the 3rd party publishers/developers rarely put in the effort for Nintendo's previous console until it caught them off-guard with its massive sales.Quote:
That game was also a solid port with good use of the gamepad. I'm not expecting a third party to give the Wii U more consideration, I'm expecting them to give it equal consideration. Few of them did that. Just about every third party port is half-assed and and gimped save a few exceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii#Online_connectivity
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
No, I pointed out a reason why someone might choose to get those consoles, even though they already have a PC that can run those games.Quote:
You missed the point. You focused on the example instead of the point that was actually being made.
Did you know that the Mass Effect series on the PC doesn't even support the 360 controller?
I didn't buy Diablo 3 on the PC and opted for the PS3 version, because the PC version doesn't support a controller. It's an action RPG, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to play that game with a controller on my living room PC.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...to-pc-diablo-3
The Last of Us Remastered was optimized to run better on the PS4. It runs at 60fps, doesn't have much improvement to texture quality, and runs at a higher resolution. It wasn't like they took the time to upgrade the texture map quality to take advantage of the hardware.Quote:
No they spent a year upgarding it. There's also examples like The Last of Us Remastered, Tomb Raider, etc. All of which were ported in under a year to PS4 and Xbox One. I highly doubt most of that time was spent on optimizing or worrying about PPC to x86. It was most likely spent on upgrading the assets.
Tomb Raider: The Definitive Edition is pretty much a PC port to the PS4.
Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4 were optimized for PC and run very well on the platform. The PC was definitely the lead platform when those games were being developed.Quote:
Watch Dogs is typical Ubisoft trash. It's performance has to do with Ubisoft incompetence, not architecture differences.
The PC community's outcry about Watch Dogs goes beyond just the frame stutter while driving. There's a loss in image quality, compared to what was being shown at E3. Ubisoft obviously centered their focus around the PS4 and XB1 versions of the game, much like what Crytek did with Crysis 2 catering more towards the 360 and PS3 hardware.
Yeah, it also supports web browser based HTML5. I doubt a PC game using the full Unreal 4 engine would just port right down to an iPhone.Quote:
Unreal 4 runs on Mobile devices.
It's crap!Quote:
Mario Party is a party game, it sells on it's multiplayer experience. Again you're making apples to oranges comparisons.
It's still a survival horror/adventure game.Quote:
The Last of US isn't advertised as a Zombie game, it's advertised as a cinematic naughty dog masterpiece. As for Dead Island, it came out a year prior on the tale end of the fad. Its successor that came out two years later sold significantly less, showing the fad has in fact died down.
Dead Island's sequel was not of the same quality as the 1st game. The quality of the game was what led to its lackluster sales, not the decline of the genre. Alien Isolation is a survival horror/stealth game that received very positive reviews and sold quite well.
You can't blame its sales on it being a dying fad. There are lot of games in that genre that are being released today and doing quite well.Quote:
The point is the game didn't review very well, it was part of a dead/dying fad, and it had some pretty bad bugs at launch.
Shadow Fall is miles better than Killzone 3. I've been pretty impressed with the 5.1 surround sound this game delivers and the level design always keeps things interesting. It really is an under-rated game.Quote:
Killzone was a PS3 souped up PS3 game, and Knack was hardly a great title. Sony's PS4 launch titles weren't ground breaking either.
Yet, Assassin's Creed: Black Flag was locked to 30 fps on the PC. The PC crowd didn't get any favors with that game either.Quote:
By December of 2013 the PS4 had a user base of 3 Million. By December of 2013 the Wii U had a user base of 3 million. Many of these developers also gave better offerings on PS4 and Xbox One than what they gave the Wii U. Were Madden and Fifa severely gimped on PS4 and Xbox One? No. Was Assassin's Creed a poorly running port? No. Those developers instilling confidence with their PS4/Xbox One titles. They didn't with their Wii U titles.
EA had all of their games available on the Saturn up to 1997. It didn't help that console at all. 2K sports kicked all kinds of EA ass for years.Quote:
Do you not understand the term self-fulfilling prophecy? If EA had jumped on board with the Dreamcast, it could have gotten other developers on board and helped boost sales by boosting the library with their games. We don't know though because they refused to touch it. They said it wasn't viable and wouldn't sell 1 Million units. It sailed past that mark easily and EA still refused to touch it.
It was in magazines like EGM. I'm not going to dig them out to show you.Quote:
Source? Because there's absolutely no mention of that in the source I linked, nor is it mentioned in anything concerning Crystal Chronicles developement.
If Squaresoft was really interested in developing games for the Gamecube, they would have released more than 1 title for it.
And that falls back on Nintendo. They work out the deals with 3rd party support, just as much as 3rd party publishers decide who they are going to develop for.Quote:
And as a developer you can choose to either help instill confidence with quality software, or choose to give your customers on that platform the finger. Many chose the latter with the Wii U.
Sans EA, Sega had a lot more 3rd party support for the Dreamcast than Nintendo had with the N64 and Wii U. Sega made an effort to get those 3rd party publishers on-board, while Nintendo obviously didn't make that effort.
According to Adam K, they've done a lot to make it easier to use the pro controller in its place. Nintendo can't continue to think that the Wii U will sell at $300, when we will more than likely see a $300 XB1 and PS4 by the end of 2015.Quote:
The Wii U's OS and everything is designed heavily around the gamepad. And there's quite a few games that rely on it directly. Most of Nintendo Land is unplayable with out it, Lego City Undercover is unplayable with out it. Super Mario 3D World, New Super Mario Bros U, etc. all use it and there are parts of the game that depend on it. Removing it isn't viable. As for PS3 and 360 being sold at a launch, perhaps that's why they didn't make much of a profit. Heck the Xbox brand had one profitable year and then went straight back to bleeding money last generation.
Yes, I was quite shocked that ME3 didn't support gamepads. Then I realized that this shockingly was the norm. Me and my brother bought 2 copies of Elder Scrolls Online. He's making due with an X-Padder, but because I can't get rid of the keyboard entirely & getting the right analog sensitivity is a b*tch. I just said to heck with it. I'll wait for the console versions and play it properly... but already lost the interest in that game. So nope. Not even going to bother with that game anymore. They don't care for me, I don't care for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
But yeah, I still can't believe this is the norm. There's zero comfort when playing with a mouse and key. Everything about the gaming industry today sucks. Even the artwork. Folks seem to have forgot how to draw properly also. As I just fired up Contra Uprising for XBLA just a before coming here, and I'm shocked that this sort of artwork got approved? The industry truely is full of monkeys.
Here's an interesting article about the woes of one developer trying to work with the crappy development tools provided by Nintendo. They also point out the weakness of the CPU.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...e-inside-story
What wonderful news. I'm sure if you run and tell that to EA right now they'll go "My god, Wii U owners really did want our games! Let's support it again!" EA doesn't care about percentage, they care about the raw sales numbers. And at the end of the day, the Trilogy sold more than the Wii U port of Mass Effect 3 and for good reason. It was a significantly better deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
And my point is that that's not the majority. And even so Wii U owners don't exist in a vacuum. Do you think soccer moms getting Mass Effect for Their kids for Christmas were going to go "Oh, here's the Wii U game for $60, oh wait, in the display case right next to the Wii U one I can get three of them for the other system we own for $40, I'll get that instead."Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
And that's not the majority. From the eShop stats we know of those 70% of people that have gone on the eShop 94% of them are men 18 and up. That's your core gamer demographic right there. I think it's safe to say they've seen reviews online, and know whats available on other systems. You can scream "But 30% don't use the service!" all you want. I don't give a damn. 30% is NOT the majority. I'm talking about the majority. You know, the group that makes up the largest chunk of the Wii U market that would be buying these games?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
And did UMK3 for the Saturn sell well? Nope. Your personal experience is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Again your personal experience is irrelevant here. And again there's a clear difference here. The situation you're describing has to do with console manufacturers undercutting each others exclusivity deals. That's not what happened with Mass Effect on the Wii U. This was the EA screwing themselves over. Sony and Nintendo had nothing to do with it. That's the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
The Gamecube's issue boiled down to Third Party developer responsibility. Sony didn't provide anything like Xbox Live for the PS2. It was in the same boat as the Gamecube. Third Party developers had to provide their own servers and infrastructure. That didn't stop them from supporting online with the PS2, they could have easily done so with the Gamecube as well. Heck because it was set up that way they could have even saved money and had Gamecube, PS2, and PC all share the same servers. If Sega could have done it, any third party could have done it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
As for the Wii, while the friend codes was annoying, it still worked fine. Mariokart Wii and other games had a very strong following. Heck the last day of official service I was still finding random games with people for Brawl, Mariokart, and even obscure stuff like the Conduit, Batallion Wars 2, Tatsunoko vs Capcom, etc. Heck Goldeneye and the Call of Duty servers are still up and still have people playing on them last I checked. The Wii U's online set up is fine really. You have a universal ID, friends lists, etc. just like on XBL and PSN. And I've yet to have trouble finding people to play with in games. Heck even the Call of Duty's on it have a small but dedicated community.
Factoring in the PC sales puts it around 900kish, I rounded up.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
I don't know, maybe the same reason GTA V, Last of Us Remastered, FFX Remastered, Devil May Cry HD Collection, etc. are more enticing for people on the newer consoles who never played their originals? You're being silly now. People buying a system at launch typically want to get some games to play. If they simply missed Mass Effect on the other systems they came out on because they were busy with other games (Like the ~75 Million other 360 and PS3 owners who didn't buy it), the Trilogy would obviously be enticing for them at $40 if they were thinking of seeing what all the hype was about. Considering how big the install bases for all three consoles was last generation, it's not hard to fathom Wii U owners have at least one if not two of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Now if they're looking for a game to get for their new system, and their interested in trying Mass Effect to see what the hype is about are they going to buy the last chapter for $60 for their new system, or go "you know what I can get all three for my older system for less, I'll just get another game for my new console and pick up the trilogy later." People aren't stupid. They're going to spend their money on what they think is more worth while. If they're looking for games for their new system they're not going to waste their $60 on a game that they could get bundled with two others for less on their older system. They're going to spend that $60 on something else like say ZombiU, or Sonic and All-Stars Racing Transformed, or New Super Mario Bros. U. You know, the games that actually sold decently at launch?
Seriously this isn't rocket science or a crazy conspiracy theory. It's just the reality of consumer thriftiness.
Many of them didn't even put effort in after it's massive sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
You're still missing the point. You said "Why bother with a Wii U when you can get a 360 or PS3 with more games!" That's a silly argument that can be made against any system. I brought up the PC vs PS4 to point out how silly the argument is. And you like an idiot missed that point and attacked the example.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
This comes back to the developers responsibility. You ask "Why should I buy a Wii U multiplat over a 360/PS3 version?" well, I'll ask you this. Why do you pick the PS3 over the 360 version or vice versa? If the Wii U ports were on equal playing grounds, the reasons for picking it's versions would fall down to the same reasons you consider picking a PS3 port over a 360 port or vice versa. But the Wii U ports aren't on equal terms. In fact the developers are giving clear reasons NOT to pick it.
It's the developers responsibility to create the reason to pick it. They are the ones trying to sell the product after all, so it's their responsibility to put effort into actually trying to sell it to you. At the very least they need to get them on equal playing grounds as far as features and port quality is concerned so it can be seriously considered by people who own a Wii U and another system their game is launching on.
Right and running better on PS4 has nothing to do with the fact the PS4 is more powerful than PS3. Clearly Naughty Dog was spending that whole year desperately trying to convert their PPC assembly to x86 assembly and just barely got it optimized well enough to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
If anything from interviews they said the hard part dealing with the PS3 specific optimizations they made with the SPE's. That's not a Power PC specific thing. That's a PS3 specific thing. They never once mentioned an issue with PowerPC vs x86. Basically it's a problem that wouldn't exist with the Wii U or 360 for that matter.
Thanks for proving my point? Again most of these third party games are being developed with PC as the lead platform and then getting down ported to consoles. If PPC was such a big deal we wouldn't see development happening this way. Basically at this point it's more of an issue if the engine you're using has a build for the platform you want to release on, and most of them support PPC and x86 due to last gen being all PPC. The only developers this affected were the ones that made their own engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
You need to do a little more research on that one. Ubisoft put in code to downgrade the PC version so the gap wasn't as big between the consoles. When modders found this and disabled it, not only did the game look substantially better but it ran better too. Again, the game was developed on PC first, then ported to consoles. Back when development started the PS4 wasn't even a thing remember?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
It would probably depend on what how demanding your assets were, just like any other engine. Unity included.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
In your opinion. Fans of Mario Party and party games in general seem to enjoy it. Especially the casuals it was aimed at.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Yes, but it's not marketed that way. That was the point. Try to pay attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Weren't you just trying to say quality didn't matter for sales with Mario Party when I said up poor quality sells like poor quality?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Such as? And if you would have read, I didn't say that was the only reason. I said it was part of the reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
And there are plenty of Mario fans who will tell you New Super Mario Bros. U is miles better than New Super Mario Bros Wii. The point is that Sony's two launch offerings weren't that great or well received by the majority of consumers either.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
The PC version being setup for parity is not the same as a port that runs worse than all the others and is missing content. The experience on PC was at least equal to the other platforms. The same is not true for the Wii U. That's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
There were a slew of other problems with the Saturn too you know. And before you say "But the Wii U has problems too!", the Wii U's third party problems could have been avoided if those developers put for a good effort when they had the chance. Nintendo's handling of the Wii U is no where near the level of disaster that Sega's handling of the Saturn was. The Saturn's problems had to do with a rushed launch leaving bad impressions, Sony undercutting them before release, ridiculously convoluted hardware that was a nightmare to develop for, etc. The Wii U had none of those issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Well your comment contradicts what's in the other article I linked. So I'm going to take what it says over you. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Right, and that has nothing to do with the fact that their main series games were locked down on Sony's platform. They didn't support the Xbox either you know. I wonder why...Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Except Nintendo did make an effort. How many times do I have to bring up all the deals they made for launch titles before you realize they did make deals and make an effort. Nintendo made deals for developers to make the games. It was the developers responsibility to actually make sure they were good. If Nintendo truly did nothing, most of those developers probably wouldn't have jumped on board in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
When Colonial Marines came out did we blame Sega or Gearbox? We blamed Gearbox because they developed the game and were the ones responsible for dropping the ball.
When Bayonetta came out running like dogshit did we blame Sony or Sega? We blamed Sega because they were the ones responsible for developing that port.
On any other platform we blame the developers responsible when a game is bad. So why do we make this illogical exception and blame Nintendo when Third Parties drop the ball with their ports. It's silly and illogical. The party in control of that ports quality and responsible for it is the developer. That's it. Nintendo can dump money on them all they want, but at the end of the day it's up to the developer to put forth a good product. If anything the Aliens Colonial Marine fiasco should be proof of that. Sega oversaw that and dumped money into Gearbox, gave them extensions, etc. The game was still garbage. Why? Because Gearbox didn't care, used the money Sega gave them to fund Borderlands, and then lied to them with demo footage that didn't reflect the actual product.
Yeah well it's gotten easier to navigate Windows over the years with a keyboard, It's far from ideal though. As a Wii U owner I can tell you the thing is definitely designed to use the gamepad. Without the gamepad the entire user interface doesn't make sense. And again, you're ignoring the tons of games that support it or flat out depend on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Anyways I'm done with this conversation. If you wanna whine about the Wii U's third party situation, go make your own thread about it. This thread is for Wii U owners or potential Wii U owners to discuss games that are out, games that are coming out, deals, accessories, promotions etc. It is not for console warring, Nintendoomed shit.
I think he's brought up some valid points. It's not even really console warring but more of an open discussion as to what could be seen as to maybe make the Wii U a better system then it already is. We all know Nintendo is dominating the handheld market however the Wii U isn't even close to what Sony and Microsoft have put out in terms of 3rd party support. It's a very ugly truth that while the 3DS prints money for Nintendo, the Wii U has been sucking money like a two dollar whore.
Even with the amazing titles that have finally come out this year, Nintendo is going to have to step up their game even more to seriously compete with the big two dogs if they want to even consider themselves a contender. I keep having this nagging thought that maybe if Nintendo hits a low point maybe something stupid like Disney buying them out will happen. lol
You should be happy this thread has this kind of Wii U discussion. It's brought forth a good amount of discussion with a side of hardheadness from both you and Gamevet. lol
You've been pretty silly for most of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrekkiesUnite118
You want to put the blame on the 3rd parties, when it's not just the Wii U that got bad versions of games. EA screwed over the PS4 and XB1 crowd with their release of NHL 15 and its lack of features available on NHL 14. The same kind of stuff happened with the 360 and its gimped version of Madden. Nintendo's console is not the only one to get bad versions of 3rd party games.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/7/6117...s-xbox-one-ps4
No, because your example was stupid. In your mind, if you own a PC that has the same game available, there's no reason to own the console version instead. A console and PC are two different platforms. A console is way more convenient as a gaming platform, than the PC is. Unless the PC version of a game is clearly superior, I'm buying it on console 1st.Quote:
You're still missing the point. You said "Why bother with a Wii U when you can get a 360 or PS3 with more games!" That's a silly argument that can be made against any system. I brought up the PC vs PS4 to point out how silly the argument is. And you like an idiot missed that point and attacked the example.
If the game looks exactly the same on the Wii U, as it does on the 360, or PS3, what incentive does a consumer have in purchasing the Wii U over the other consoles? There's only one and that's Nintendo's 1st party software.
No, most of these games aren't being developed on the PC as the lead platform. That's why there's crap like the Need for Speed games only utilizing 2 CPU cores on the PC, even though the box will recommend a quad-core.Quote:
Thanks for proving my point? Again most of these third party games are being developed with PC as the lead platform and then getting down ported to consoles. If PPC was such a big deal we wouldn't see development happening this way. Basically at this point it's more of an issue if the engine you're using has a build for the platform you want to release on, and most of them support PPC and x86 due to last gen being all PPC. The only developers this affected were the ones that made their own engines.
No, the game was being touted for the next-gen consoles. People believed that it was being shown on a PC at that E3 show, so that's where the problems started with the PC crowd. The files the modder found helped increase contrast and some lighting but really didn't improve the performance. The game had and still has a memory management issue on the PC and even though the latest patch held alleviate the problem, it's still there.Quote:
You need to do a little more research on that one. Ubisoft put in code to downgrade the PC version so the gap wasn't as big between the consoles. When modders found this and disabled it, not only did the game look substantially better but it ran better too. Again, the game was developed on PC first, then ported to consoles. Back when development started the PS4 wasn't even a thing remember?
My response in no way contradicts what's in that article. That article shows what Squaresoft had to do to get permission from Sony to publish a game on the Gamecube. It makes no mention of the handheld market that Squaresoft was supporting through the Wonderswan.Quote:
Well your comment contradicts what's in the other article I linked. So I'm going to take what it says over you. Sorry.
Right, and that has nothing to do with the fact that their main series games were locked down on Sony's platform. They didn't support the Xbox either you know. I wonder why...
And here's what I was talking about. You'll pull A Black Falcon like response, which I'm seeing a lot of here, bb discounting it because it was a rumor. Nintendo wasn't going to openly admit that they were refusing Squaresoft's titles on the GBA.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/g...faq-squaresoft
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendoworldreport
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendoworldreport
Colonial Marines has nothing to do with the discussion. It's a crap game, just like the latest Duke Nukem title was. Every platform got screwed with those horrible games.Quote:
Except Nintendo did make an effort. How many times do I have to bring up all the deals they made for launch titles before you realize they did make deals and make an effort. Nintendo made deals for developers to make the games. It was the developers responsibility to actually make sure they were good. If Nintendo truly did nothing, most of those developers probably wouldn't have jumped on board in the first place.
When Colonial Marines came out did we blame Sega or Gearbox? We blamed Gearbox because they developed the game and were the ones responsible for dropping the ball.
When Bayonetta came out running like dogshit did we blame Sony or Sega? We blamed Sega because they were the ones responsible for developing that port.
On any other platform we blame the developers responsible when a game is bad. So why do we make this illogical exception and blame Nintendo when Third Parties drop the ball with their ports. It's silly and illogical. The party in control of that ports quality and responsible for it is the developer. That's it. Nintendo can dump money on them all they want, but at the end of the day it's up to the developer to put forth a good product. If anything the Aliens Colonial Marine fiasco should be proof of that. Sega oversaw that and dumped money into Gearbox, gave them extensions, etc. The game was still garbage. Why? Because Gearbox didn't care, used the money Sega gave them to fund Borderlands, and then lied to them with demo footage that didn't reflect the actual product.
If you had even bothered to read the article I had posted, you'd see just how jacked up Nintendo's support for Wii U 3rd party developers was. They were lucky that those games turned out as well as they did. There's no way EA could have ported over all 3 Mass Effect games under those conditions.
The only person that was whining about it was you. I stated that I have no interest in the Wii U, other than its 1st party titles, and that 3rd party support was horrible.Quote:
Anyways I'm done with this conversation. If you wanna whine about the Wii U's third party situation, go make your own thread about it. This thread is for Wii U owners or potential Wii U owners to discuss games that are out, games that are coming out, deals, accessories, promotions etc. It is not for console warring, Nintendoomed shit.
NHL as a franchise isn't as big as Madden. It's lucky if all platforms combined it sells more than the Wii versions of Madden sold. Yeah, Madden was sort of gimped on the 360, but that was almost 10 years ago. The more relevant question to ask is did EA gimp the PS4 and Xbox One versions of Madden 25. The answer is a blatant no. The point I'm making here is pretty simple. Third Parties have had a huge chance to win back Nintendo owners at launch. They could have had a market if they brought their A game and made stellar ports. But instead they blew it with poor performing ports, cut features, missing DLC, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
You say "Well Nintendo should have jumped in and done something!" Well if Nintendo had no signs there was something wrong it's kind of hard for them to jump in. With Mass Effect that was announced just a month or so before the Wii U launched. That's not enough time to get EA to port it, both releases by that point had probably been finalized and began mass production to get ready for release. Heck Sonic Boom for Wii U was finalized back in July and began printing for it's November release date. If that's a sign of anything it's that 2 months before launch isn't enough time to do jack shit.
In many PC owners opinion there's no reason to own the console version instead of the PC version. You again missed the point. The point was that that's a purely opinion statement that can be made against ANY system. Even the PC.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
You're thinking that the people buying Wii U's are brand new console owners who never owned a console before. Again from the eShop data we know the majority of Wii U owners are men 18+. Odds are they already have at least one of the last gen systems, maybe 2. Your early adopters in this market are your hardcore gamers remember?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
The question for these people isn't "Why should I buy a Wii U over a PS3/360?" it's "I'm getting a Wii U, now what to get with it?" If the ports were equal, it falls into the same category of why does a person who owns both a PS3 and 360 pick one version of a game over the other when they're equal? People who just got a new console are obviously hyped about the thing, they'd be more interested in picking up games for it if the ports are equal. If the ports are worse they'll buy something else and get that game later for the older system they own.
When more developers drop the ball like that it sends a false impression that the system is worse than the older hardware, which then hurts sales overall. Nintendo put out decent titles for launch, some could argue they were better than what Sony and Microsoft put out. Third parties dropped the ball with shitty ports. Again, I'm not talking about right now, I'm talking about back at launch.
If the Need for Speed games were developed for the consoles as the lead why would they be designed to use only one core when the 360 last generation had 3 cores? And from Criterions interview for the Wii U port of Need for Speed Most Wanted, they pretty much confirmed they had one core version they made for PC first and then got it running on the other platforms when they described their build process.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
If Consoles were the lead for those games as you said and the PC was the lazy port, why would Criterion bother giving the PC version better textures, models, lighting, etc.? Why would they use it for all the promotional material over the console versions that obviously was the one they made first and gave the most effort to? Early in the generation consoles may have been the lead. But that shifted later on and at this point things are being made on PC first and then ported to consoles, or made on engines that can easily deploy to different platforms.
The game was announced before the PS4 was even finalized. Ubisoft was developing on PCs with what they thought were approximate specs. People who have decent PCs have no trouble running the game with those effects turned on. That mod does more than increase contrast and lighting, it adds a lot of other effects that were in the E3 build like better bloom, better depth of field effects, etc. You might want to go take a look at the mod itself:Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=390114
Improved performance and fixes to the stuttering problems are two of the things it fixes. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the remaining problems have to do with Ubisofts stupid DRM?
At the end of the day, the game was made on PC first. There's really no evidence to say otherwise. Then we have the whole debacle of most of Microsofts Xbox One titles they showed at E3 in 2013 were running on PCs:
http://gamerant.com/e3-2013-xbox-one...windows-7-pcs/
Maybe because what Square was putting on the Wonderswan were ports of older games Sony didn't have exclusivity rights too?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
But it IS an unconfirmed rumor. And it needs to be taken as such. If anything the quotes are simply Nintendo saying "We haven't heard anything about them doing a deal with us directly yet, and we have no evidence to suggest it at this time." In other words typical PR speak. The point I'm getting at here is that maybe the reason the Gamecube didn't get any big games past Crystal Chronicles was because most of what Square was pumping out that gen were things Sony had exclusivity to at the time, like Final Fantasy, Star Ocean, etc. Even the GBA didn't get anything major. It got some old NES and SNES remakes, a Kingdom Hearts Spin Off, and that's about it. Every other big release Square Enix did that generation went on Sony's platform and fell under that exclusivity agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
You're saying Square didn't touch the Gamecube because they didn't like, but in reality you're completely ignoring the huge fucking exclusivity agreement they were stuck in with Sony. That didn't die until years later when they did Dragon Quest IX on the DS and put Final Fantasy XIII on the 360.
You missed the point again. The point wasn't that it was crappy and which platform got screwed. The point was that we don't really blame Sega for it, or the companies that made the platform it released on for it. We blame the developer who made it, Gearbox. Are you really this incapable of reading?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Did you bother to read the article I linked from Criterion that had nothing but good things to say? What about the interviews with Platinum that say working with Nintendo and the hardware was wonderful? I'd say those hold far more weight than a random interview from an anonymous developer who we don't even know is real or not. Really the main issue in that article boils down to development tools, which improved over time up to launch. You're acting like it was some awful oppressive situation when it wasn't. It was typical dev tool growing pains that most systems go through. The only reason we didn't hear much about it with the PS4 and Xbox One is because they're literally PCs.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
And EA didn't even port Mass Effect 3, Straight Right did. And there were no complaints from them:
http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2...interview.html
So really the argument that the conditions were so bad that they just couldn't port the other two if they wanted is just silly. The developer that actually did the port had no issues. If EA wanted they could have given them more funding to port the other two, or even outsourced it to other companies.
So then why the hell are you posting in a Wii U thread? I was asked for my opinion on the third party situation. You were the one who went "How dare you blame the developers who actually made the game for the port being shitty! Clearly it was all Nintendo's fault!" I'm sorry if my opinion on the matter doesn't fit the Nintendo is Doomed and everything is there fault narrative. But at the end of the day multiple parties were involved in the Wii U's launch and they all share the blame in some of it's problems. Poor reception of bad third party ports falls mostly on the shoulders of the developers who made the games, not Nintendo.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
Anyways since you're clearly not interested in a Wii U but only want to participate in the Nintendoomed trolling/discussion, why don't you go make your own thread for that? Or go post in one of the older threads that was about that?