What do Big Brother Societies have to do with game consoles failing on the market?
Big Brother Societies fail? And it's not just their lack of games, but something more on the metaphysical level?
Big Brother Societies fail? And it's not just their lack of games, but something more on the metaphysical level?
Big Brother Societies fail? And it's not just their lack of games, but something more on the metaphysical level?
You're stretching harder than the girls in an orgy porgy.
My mental eye sees a certain Spiderman picture featuring a fist.
Yeah, I was probably a bit harsh/overly sarcastic, but I have read a lot of stupid ideas on here.
Mario 64 was not open world. It was a series of small worlds tied together by a hub world, just like Mario Galaxy was. I think what you are talking about is for the worlds to actually be explorable 3D worlds rather than linearized levels trying to push you forward. If we can agree on that distinction, then that is something I would agree upon. I loved Mario 64 (I need to play Star Road now that I have a PC to play it on as Not64 couldn't quite handle it as well as I'd have liked).
I don't buy it. Nintendo's hardware comes together pretty nicely. It's all well and good to quote theoretical specs, but how they work out in the real world is another issue. Are games really going to make use of 8 processor cores? Last I saw, which, granted, could be outdated, most games only really benefit from two or three cores. And then there's the question of how good are graphics going get from here on out? As the hardware gets better, graphics are increasingly going to be cost-limited rather than hardware-limited, and we've already seen some game companies this past generation going out of business spending too much money on their games. And then there's the question of how much overhead are the PS4 and Xbone operating systems going to have eating up the extra resources. Are those consoles really going to have games making the most out of hardware, or will they go the way of the PC where they become too generalized and lose their advantage over the PC of getting more bang for your buck.
forgive me for going out of order here, but the ones before and after seem to belong together.
Nintendo is (was? don't know if costs have gone down) losing money on that $300 console. People buying the Xbone and PS4 to me show the effects of a positive feedback loop. It didn't seem to matter what Nintendo did, people already had decided they were going with their Sony or Microsoft consoles after having labeled Nintendo "kiddie" the previous generation.
Easier said than done. There seemed to be a lot of verbal support from third party developers when the Wii U was announced, but when Nintendo turned to them, they disappeared. Third parties had complained the previous generation that they couldn't compete with Nintendo's software, so Nintendo gave them an opportunity at launch to get their software out there with limited Nintendo software to compete with, and they squandered it, complaining that people weren't buying the Wii U (because "Wii U haz no gaems", oh the irony). Too bad EA's "unprecedented" relationship with Nintendo consisted of a couple half-assed ports such as Mass Effect 3 (with the previous two games never hitting a Nintendo console) coming out around the same time and same price as Mass Effect Trilogy coming out on the previous gen hardware; *gasp*, that didn't sell well? And then Ubisoft had a golden opportunity to get Rayman Legends out there when no other games were on the horizon, but instead decided to delay it because they decided that they wanted to not only break the Wii U exclusivity they professed for the game, but they can't let Wii U owners get their hands on it while the poor previous gen people are waiting.
I think much like consumer decision to buy Xbone/PS4, developers going to those consoles are related to the idea of a positive feedback loop. Overcoming the feedback loop is where a lot of the difficulties lie.
Whenever a Nintendo studio isn't making noise, I just assume they're quietly working behind the scenes. Nintendo likes to hold things close to the vest. It's been years since Nintendo mentioned that Miyamoto was working on a secret project and it still hasn't been revealed. As for Camelot, it looks like they have a Mario Golf game scheduled for 2014 release.
They probably don't even need to buy IPs, they've got plenty of their own that have gone dormant or can make new ones. Bringing in good talent, though, isn't a bad idea. They seem to get along with Platinum Studios, and that studio seems to have some good talent to it. Nintendo could bring them in and could have a few options in projects for them to work on. A lot of their recent work has been more niche, but when they were Clover Studio, they showed they could make quite the adventure game with Okami; if they teamed up with some other Nintendo talents, they may be able to make a new game in that vein that could be a huge hit.
agreed. I do enjoy homebrew, but I buy a console for the real games.
that's true, but a lot of the criticism I read just makes me shake my head. Nintendo isn't Sony or Microsoft, and I prefer it that way. Do we really want three companies doing the same thing?
whew, that was a long one to get through.
Oh, I know! The only console that will survive will be the one propped up by the NSA: the Xbone, which has been programmed to spy on you forWhat do Big Brother Societies have to do with game consoles failing on the market?
Yes! That is scary, though. I'd wish for the console system to die instead of having this as the sole survivor.
Edit: I won't let this double post go to waste.
Yep.
I treated it as an open world in the sense of being able to go pretty much wherever you wanted in any given order provided you met the requirements for opening a given painting, which is an early version of an open world. You call that a hub world, and fair enough, that's what I meant. It's a world that's "open", but it's not a sandbox, so to speak.
Do note how both Sony and Microsoft went door to door contacting developers while preparing their systems and they both came up with bizzarely similar designs... while Nintendo continued to use the architecture then know how to use, except improved it slightly by adding more cores and a secondary ARM CPU.
Nintendo creates consoles that play their games and they should create games that play on their consoles - the system itself has to be approachable to developers in general, not just "their" developers.
As for the fact that games generally tend to not use a lot of cores and tend to stay within the realm of 32-bits, this is a limitation imposed by consoles themselves and those limitations are gone this generation. As for the "good graphics" question, I'll use an example. Character models in Uncharted 3 were composed of 30 000 polygons on average, in Uncharted 4, the models are going to be up to 1 000 000 polygons each. I hope this answers the question.
As for the OS'es eating up resources, you're completely forgetting about co-processors. Worst-case scenario, both can lock out one core for just the OS and that's going to be entirely sufficient. The Wii U on the other hand is spreading its resources thin and GPGPU is not going to help when the GPU is already way behind. It's just no contest.
But alas, the Wii U was well-recieved when it was first unveiled... and then we saw what the other two nextgens could do and forgot about that. Everyone was impressed by Wii U tech demos during its initial reveal, but it turned out to be too little too late.
It's hard to blame third-parties for not supporting the console full-blast when the console doesn't sell, partially because it's poorly marketed, partially because it's not designed quite right and partially because the licensing terms are what they are - Nintendo is well-known to be quite the sour puss when dealing with third-parties, this isn't something that popped up yesterday, this is an approach they continue to utilize since the SNES or even the NES days. They treat developing for their consoles as a privilege of the select few and right now, if anything, they should be begging for support to the point of funding development, just like they have with Bayonetta 2.
Developers flock the XBox One and the PS4 because they sell, because the development environments are easy to use, follow industry standards including DirectX 11 (not just "have equivalent functions" like the Wii U), offer superior Online infrastructures and give them room to create rather than optimize. After the PowerPC era, developers are sick and tired of microcode or "equivalent but not quite" function sets - they want to use the libraries they're used to.
Oh, good, good. I forgot about that.
Platinum already stated that they will not sell out - they wish to remain an independent studio and their contractual obligation in terms of Bayonetta 2 and Wonderful 101 is entirely temporary.
Yep.
We definitely don't want three companies to do the exact same thing, but this is exactly the reason why the respective fanbases need to speak up to tell their favorites what they actually want - it allows the companies to better deliver what's expected from them.
I do like to write elaborate posts sometimes.
What I was reading was about PCs and running benchmarks on games by activating more cores to be used and seeing how the performance reacted to the extra cores, and most games only really made use of two, and some made use of three. I'm not in the game industry, though, so I don't know if pushing forward more cores will actually be useful. We'll see. As for the million polygon models, I... really don't care :/. The law of diminishing returns strikes here for me. Multiply that number by 10 and you probably won't notice much difference. Well, at least I probably won't, not without specifically zooming the camera in and standing up to the TV and caressing his face. How much do those extra polygons and higher resolution textures cost developers, though? That's what worries me. I don't want developers cutting corners with the rest of the game so they can make the hair on Rambo's ass look a little more realistic.
The cores will also be using up memory. While the main memory usage probably won't be too terrible with all the RAM on those systems, I do wonder how much of an effect it might have on cache performance if the OS is taking up space there. On a related note, I really like the way Nintendo constructed it's memory hierarchy. It looks like it could be quite efficient at limiting the cost of cache misses.
It's not that they didn't support full-blast, but that they were rather two-faced about it. EA come out talking about their great relationship with Nintendo and then put out crap and whined when their crap didn't sell. Ugh, I'm getting tired, I'm going to put a little less effort into the rest of this.
Kamiya actually said that he'd love to work more closely with Nintendo. Maybe he doesn't want to be bought out (yet), but that doesn't mean they can't work together to make great games. I wouldn't mind seeing them supporting some third parties like they did back in the day with Silicon Knights to make Eternal Darkness or N-Space to make Geist (related note, I was really disappointed when N-Space's Wii game "Winter" never found a publisher, it looked like a promising survival/horror game).
For the most part, I like what Nintendo does. If third parties jump on board, great. I'm a rare breed of animal in that I went the entire past generation with only a Wii and I found plenty of games to play on it. Sure, I missed out on GTA (IV and V were overrated anyways, having played on my brother's PS3), but with a library that had fewer games of the type I knew I'd play, I was forced to experiment and look deeper into the lineup, and it opened my eyes to games/genres I wouldn't have played otherwise. Kinda reminded me of an earlier time when there was a less saturated game market and we had to take chances with games we were unsure of.
And don't let anyone make you feel bad about it.I do like to write elaborate posts sometimes.
1 000 000 polygons? Do you realize the cost of making such models? At what point in time do graphics become a pain in the ass and conflict with regular game development? Up to one million polygons? Is this going to be the standard polygon amounts for all games that come out this generation for any console? Suddenly, I can well understand why developers don't want to make games for the Wii U now; they won't be able to have character models that are comprised of a million or so polygons; they'll have to settle for less polygons and more on the story since all that extra room isn't going to the graphics. But of course it's easier to upgrade the graphics than to write a well thought out story or have manageable controls for when the game is being played.*snip*
As for the fact that games generally tend to not use a lot of cores and tend to stay within the realm of 32-bits, this is a limitation imposed by consoles themselves and those limitations are gone this generation. As for the "good graphics" question, I'll use an example. Character models in Uncharted 3 were composed of 30 000 polygons on average, in Uncharted 4, the models are going to be up to 1 000 000 polygons each. I hope this answers the question.
*snip*
We definitely don't want three companies to do the exact same thing, but this is exactly the reason why the respective fanbases need to speak up to tell their favorites what they actually want - it allows the companies to better deliver what's expected from them.
I do like to write elaborate posts sometimes.
I can only clamor so much for Nintendo to release Paper Mario U; I need support and equally vociferous Ninty fans, dammit! And then, not only do we have to be vociferous together, we have to make sure our vociferousness reaches the ears of either game developers, signaling that there are people who want to play games on the Wii U, or Nintendo themselves. And, if this vociferous behaviour succeeds, then we can use it some more to get a new Metroid AND a new F-Zero game.
But there's not much interest in the U anyway since "journalists" don't write about it. And, a lot of young gamers read the "journalists" articles. I foresee action in Nintendo's future if "journalists" start writing articles about the games that are coming to the U next year. If Nintendo is having a hard time advertising their system, then let the "journalists" do it for them: I believe that's what they're for.
Yeah, it's gonna be soooo much work...
Welcome to the 21st century where we scan tangible, real-life 3D "objects" and only do the "clean-up" and skeleton work in 3D modelling software. Also, hi Kiefer! You better don't mess up Snake or I'll be quite upset with you!
Besides, as that particular post mentions, the models in-game are likely to have a lower polycount, the high-poly model will be used to create normals maps and the rest will be done with tesselation, but they'll still provide a far superior level of realism than ever before.
The Wii was innovative.
There is no innovation in the Wii U.
Even the name sucks.
I don't think the underpowered aspect of the Wii U is a problem.
Developers could work around that.
The problem is no one is buying the Wii U.
and therefore people aren't making games for it.
and that drives sales down.
Yeah, it's gonna be soooo much work...
Welcome to the 21st century where we scan tangible, real-life 3D "objects" and only do the "clean-up" and skeleton work in 3D modelling software. Also, hi Kiefer! You better don't mess up Snake or I'll be quite upset with you!
Besides, as that particular post mentions, the models in-game are likely to have a lower polycount, the high-poly model will be used to create normals maps and the rest will be done with tesselation, but they'll still provide a far superior level of realism than ever before.
And how much will they have to pay the people to pose? Well actually, Disney created its movies like this. Their artists drew sketches based off the movements of people and then incorporated them into their storyboards. There's a special feature on Peter Pan explaining how they animated Tinker Bell; it's really interesting. But back then, animation could be distinguished from the real world.
Maybe I was wrong about making the tablet optional. It is a pretty rash move.
I do think the idea had a few merits, but likewise, having the tablet "mandatory" has its own advantages.
I might have been wrong on another thing as well.
Maybe F-Zero GX has sideramming as a shift key for a reason.
I saw a youtube of someone playing F-Zero X, and they spam sideramming whenever they pass a group of opponents.
On top of that, they use sideramming during cornering. -_-
Anyway, here's what Nintendo must do: Release a Mario Kart in which:
- 1 player on TV or tablet
- 2 players (one on tablet, the other on TV)
- 3 players (one on tablet, the other 2 splitscreen)
- 4 players (splitscreen)
- online play (for 1 and 2 players at least)
No more 3 players, with 1/4th of the screen unused!
Nintendo could really use a new Perfect Dark or Goldeneye to capitalize on this feature.
I do think the idea had a few merits, but likewise, having the tablet "mandatory" has its own advantages.
I might have been wrong on another thing as well.
Maybe F-Zero GX has sideramming as a shift key for a reason.
I saw a youtube of someone playing F-Zero X, and they spam sideramming whenever they pass a group of opponents.
On top of that, they use sideramming during cornering. -_-
Anyway, here's what Nintendo must do: Release a Mario Kart in which:
- 1 player on TV or tablet
- 2 players (one on tablet, the other on TV)
- 3 players (one on tablet, the other 2 splitscreen)
- 4 players (splitscreen)
- online play (for 1 and 2 players at least)
No more 3 players, with 1/4th of the screen unused!
Nintendo could really use a new Perfect Dark or Goldeneye to capitalize on this feature.
It just occurred to me that 3DS sales are absurd over 40 million units sold, so perhaps the best strategy would be to try to convert part is these users. Maybe offer some nice integration or discount. Whatever they do to try to make 3DS owners more attracted to Wii U.
Thing is, the 3DS didn't sell when it had no games and the price tag was quite high - it started off after a major price cut and some good releases... So here's a thought... do that, Nintendo.
I think many people play handhelds at home. But the way I see it, making a console like this is an uphill battle, and that is what the WiiU is experiencing right now.Here's the problem - if you want to buy a home console, it should probably feel like a home console. If you want to buy a portable, you probably want to go out with it, which is something you can't do with the Wii U. Not saying that the system's crap, just saying that your reasons for liking it are a bit odd.
- People have used game consoles on TV's for over 20 years, without off-TV play.
- Not all WiiU games support off-TV play. (N probably dropped the ball on this one) Ergo, a person buying the WiiU is not really buying the it for off-TV play. Ergo, it is a frivolous feature.
- If you play on TV all the time, then the feature is redundant. If you play on the tablet all the time, it being a console is redundant. The off-TV play feature only really pans out as intended if you switch to TV or from the TV at least once during your play session. Add to the fact that more than half of WiiU games don't support it ... the inanity of it all is enough to make a prospective buyer's head spin.
- It's not considered to be a next gen system. In effect it is a tradeoff. (much like getting a handheld)
- "why not just get a handheld" is a very good question indeed.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Messages
- 11,005
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- The Twilight Zone
- Website
- www.hacksden.com
- XP
- 4,339
- Country
Paying to bring a game over is not the same as losing money... if the game sells. And I suspect the game would sell quite well on the Wii U, actually.
Also, losing money on your console sales is pretty much par for the course. It's not a thing unique to Nintendo.
I feel like having a 3D options isn't the same as enjoying the console to its fullest. Most of the people I know enjoy their 3DS to its fullest in 2D mode because they don't care about the 3D at all, and rather hate it. I think that's a far more likely reason Nintendo doesn't do more with a 3D console; the demand is just too low.
Game Makers are going to concentrate on PS4 and XBone titles.
To top it off, some of those Game Makers will still have Wii titles, and those will work on the Wii U.
The Wii U is absolutely screwed.
To top it off, some of those Game Makers will still have Wii titles, and those will work on the Wii U.
The Wii U is absolutely screwed.
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
You can make a post on the DS forum about your findings, and they'll do their best to respond. They have a GBAtemp account here, you know. -
@
Materia_tofu:
oh ye i made a post i did forget they had an account i prob shouldve tagged them in the post+1
tbh -
-
-
-
-
@
BakerMan:
Update on my brother: He's home now, tired and hungry, obviously, but other than that, seems to be doing fine.+2 -
-
-
@
BakerMan:
Well, from what I've heard from my parents, he had a seizure last night, perhaps an epileptic episode, fucking died, had a near death experience, my dad called the paramedics, they showed up, took him to the hospital, and he woke up covered in tubes, and started complaining.
-
-
-
-
