Quantcast
Who believes Wii's successor will have better third party support?

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Who believes Wii's successor will have better third party support?

BengaBenga said:


Third parties don't develop for Wii because it's expensive to downport and there's a bigger market for their blockbuster mature games on 360 PS3 PC.If they didn't had to alter their games to be on Wii 99% of multiplatform games would have been there as well. Companies don't hate Nintendo, they just don't want to put extra effort in to change their normal way of working.

Actually its very cheap to down-port games. All you need from a development perspective is a few interns which means very little in terms of overall cost. It is far easier to tear things out wholesale than it is to put them back in. This is from one of the horses mouths (developer) who worked on all three systems at once. I don't think its specifically the quantity of work required to make the games, there are multiple angles beyond this which better explain the whole picture.



Around the Network
Xoj said:

erm not an atom that's wrong in so many levels. that's for sure, maybe gpu will be better but even a core 7i barely gets to floating point performance of cell based cpus.

 

Floating point performance isn't everything. The i7 isn't designed to be a floating point monster because it is designed to run an operating system like Windows and perform well at general purpose tasks. So sure the Atom sucks at floating point, but then again the Cell processor would suck at running Windows by comparison. Beyond that, they can lean on the GPU which is specialised at floating point operations, even more so than the Cell is.



It mostly depends on graphics, and in innovation



Xoj said:
HappySqurriel said:
LordTheNightKnight said:

Let's assume by some miracle, Nintendo was able to make the Wii as powerful as the other systems, without breaking $300 in MSRP, or selling it at a loss.

Either they make the GC games they were making, which mostly don't have mainstream appeal, and the system continues to sell less than the last one. Porting be damned, the system would have too little overall sales (userbase doesn't affect individual game sales, but software shipments of all the games on a system*).

Or Nintendo makes Wii Sports, just with greater graphical detail. It would still be an evil casual game, same with Wii Play and Wii Fit. Developer still decide Wii owners are "the wrong people", and still find ways to neglect the system. Modern Warfare would be an exception (since it actually was tech issues that kep the Wii engine from being done in time for the first MW game), but not because Infinity Ward would actually want to work on the Wii, but because Activision makes them.

You do realize that an Intel Atom (D525) and a $35 Graphics card (ATI Radeon HD 5450) would produce very similar results to the HD consoles today, don’t you?

If starting from scratch using modern technology it would be fairly easy for a company like Nintendo to exceed the performance of the HD consoles in a $200 system; and with every day that passes it becomes easier and easier. Hell, by the end of 2012 I wouldn’t be too surprised to see a phone with (roughly) the processing power of the HD consoles.

erm not an atom that's wrong in so many levels. that's for sure, maybe gpu will be better but even a core 7i barely gets to floating point performance of cell based cpus.

and windows games have a performance hit of using directx and a slow system OS running on the back.

I'm talking real-world performance, not theoretical performance. The PS3 and XBox 360 have demonstrated in game performance that puts them in line with the Athlon 64 X2 and low end Core 2 Duos, which the Intel Atom D525 is in the same (basic) range. Both the PS3 and XBox 360 have (potentially) more powerful CPUs than the Intel Atom, but probably not to the extent that some would believe; and anyone who believes that the Cell can compare to an i7 in real world performance has been drinking the Sony Kool-Aid.

edit: Just to make my point clearer ... Back in the mid/late 1990s there were DSPs that were able to decode an MP3 in less time than it took an Intel Pentium II processor to do the same process; and these DSPs sold for 5% the cost of the Pentium II processor. This (of course) did not make these processors faster than the Pentium II, they just made them better suited to the task of decoding an MP3.

The Cell processor is really well suited to certain tasks (in particular in scientific computing) but very rarely will a task line-up in such a way where the theoretical processing power of the Cell can be realized. As we’re approaching the 6 year mark of developers working with the Cell processor, and it still showing very little benefit over processors with a fraction of its theoretical processing power, it should be obvious that the Cell processor is a poor fit for most modern videogames.



WilliamWatts said:
BengaBenga said:


Third parties don't develop for Wii because it's expensive to downport and there's a bigger market for their blockbuster mature games on 360 PS3 PC.If they didn't had to alter their games to be on Wii 99% of multiplatform games would have been there as well. Companies don't hate Nintendo, they just don't want to put extra effort in to change their normal way of working.

Actually its very cheap to down-port games. All you need from a development perspective is a few interns which means very little in terms of overall cost. It is far easier to tear things out wholesale than it is to put them back in. This is from one of the horses mouths (developer) who worked on all three systems at once. I don't think its specifically the quantity of work required to make the games, there are multiple angles beyond this which better explain the whole picture.


I disagree it's too hard to be worth it, but it's not easy. Often the assets have to be remade from scratch, or extensively redone to fit on the system.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network

No, its been a fun ride but i think im done with nintendo "Consoles" been playing them since the snes all the way til now but the steam just doesn't have the punk in them anymore ... Unless the following factors happens next gen... whenever that is.

Positive Factors:

If its graphics are above and beyond PS3/360 and modern PC's.

If they Continue to innovate and at the same time WITH graphical and HD muscle behind them.

If they create a online system on par with Steam/PSN or XBL.

If they use all the money they made off of the DS and wii to be smart and bring back IP's that need a reboot, that includes 3rd parties.

If they become balanced when it comes to games, for example Xbox 360 is for the overall amount of good games, while PS3 has the best versatillity and Wii has the family exp. Basiclly the next nintendo console... or all consoles next gen in general should become more PC like but better.

 

{_______}

Negative factors:

- If Half or All of the Above does not happen.

 

Bottom line, i hope Nintendo doesn't hold a monopoly in 3rd party games for consoles next gen, would rather have a fairway tie between all 3 or close to it.



LordTheNightKnight said:
WilliamWatts said:

Actually its very cheap to down-port games. All you need from a development perspective is a few interns which means very little in terms of overall cost. It is far easier to tear things out wholesale than it is to put them back in. This is from one of the horses mouths (developer) who worked on all three systems at once. I don't think its specifically the quantity of work required to make the games, there are multiple angles beyond this which better explain the whole picture.


I disagree it's too hard to be worth it, but it's not easy. Often the assets have to be remade from scratch, or extensively redone to fit on the system.

Which doesn't explain why there are PSP ports but not Wii ports for some games even though the PSP is arguably much weaker than the Wii. Theres obviously some other angle involved which isn't explained by development costs or effort, although my pet theory is the marketing angle in terms of percieved audience and how they are allowed to market certain titles.



WilliamWatts said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
WilliamWatts said:

Actually its very cheap to down-port games. All you need from a development perspective is a few interns which means very little in terms of overall cost. It is far easier to tear things out wholesale than it is to put them back in. This is from one of the horses mouths (developer) who worked on all three systems at once. I don't think its specifically the quantity of work required to make the games, there are multiple angles beyond this which better explain the whole picture.


I disagree it's too hard to be worth it, but it's not easy. Often the assets have to be remade from scratch, or extensively redone to fit on the system.

Which doesn't explain why there are PSP ports but not Wii ports for some games even though the PSP is arguably much weaker than the Wii. Theres obviously some other angle involved which isn't explained by development costs or effort, although my pet theory is the marketing angle in terms of percieved audience and how they are allowed to market certain titles.


What makes you think what I wrote contradicts why the PSP games were made?

And the angle is about willingness, not tech. Duh.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

LordTheNightKnight said:
WilliamWatts said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
WilliamWatts said:

Actually its very cheap to down-port games. All you need from a development perspective is a few interns which means very little in terms of overall cost. It is far easier to tear things out wholesale than it is to put them back in. This is from one of the horses mouths (developer) who worked on all three systems at once. I don't think its specifically the quantity of work required to make the games, there are multiple angles beyond this which better explain the whole picture.


I disagree it's too hard to be worth it, but it's not easy. Often the assets have to be remade from scratch, or extensively redone to fit on the system.

Which doesn't explain why there are PSP ports but not Wii ports for some games even though the PSP is arguably much weaker than the Wii. Theres obviously some other angle involved which isn't explained by development costs or effort, although my pet theory is the marketing angle in terms of percieved audience and how they are allowed to market certain titles.


What makes you think what I wrote contradicts why the PSP games were made?

And the angle is about willingness, not tech. Duh.

It wasn't particularly clear which way you were inferring.



WilliamWatts said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
WilliamWatts said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
WilliamWatts said:

Actually its very cheap to down-port games. All you need from a development perspective is a few interns which means very little in terms of overall cost. It is far easier to tear things out wholesale than it is to put them back in. This is from one of the horses mouths (developer) who worked on all three systems at once. I don't think its specifically the quantity of work required to make the games, there are multiple angles beyond this which better explain the whole picture.


I disagree it's too hard to be worth it, but it's not easy. Often the assets have to be remade from scratch, or extensively redone to fit on the system.

Which doesn't explain why there are PSP ports but not Wii ports for some games even though the PSP is arguably much weaker than the Wii. Theres obviously some other angle involved which isn't explained by development costs or effort, although my pet theory is the marketing angle in terms of percieved audience and how they are allowed to market certain titles.


What makes you think what I wrote contradicts why the PSP games were made?

And the angle is about willingness, not tech. Duh.

It wasn't particularly clear which way you were inferring.


Okay. So just in case, even down porting takes a fair amount of work, but the fact that the PSP gets games show developers can do it, but they are using the specs as a bullshit excuse.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs