Viper1 said:
*sigh* Still focused on nothing but graphics. Think of it this way. Say a developer is building their game using UE4 and want a Wii U version. What do you think they'd rather do? Convert it to UE3 and then port or directly develop it alongside the other editions via UE4?
|
I'm going to stop you right there. Developers aren't even going to bother because: A) It's too much hassle. B) Not worth the effort if consumers won't support it. Nintendo fans are not going to pay $60 to have massively downscaled versions of games when they're already raising a stink about things like Arkham City.
Most developers aren't even bothering to port their freaking current PS3/360 games, no one is going to really give that much of a poop to port Unreal Engine 4 to Wii U. What's the point? The whole point of UE4 is to provide experiences beyond what exists on UE3 centric hardware. Scaling down the engine so far that it can run on PS3/360/Wii U (that it probably ought to be the UE3) is a novelty that a handful of people might care about in actual practice.
The main point of Unreal Engine 4, whether people want to admit it or not, is to provide graphics engines (which includes physics and not just "ooooh purdy textures") that go far, far beyond Unreal Engine 3. That's the whole point. If you have to downscale the engine so far that it may as well be Unreal Engine 3, then it defeats the purpose. Which is basically what Mark Rein is saying. This is an engine for next-generation consoles, as in consoles with hardware significant hardware leaps beyond PS3/360. Period.
People just need to get over that already. Nintendo didn't enough of a crap, that's basically all it boils down to. They wanted a chip that was ridiculously small and power efficient. AMD probably easily could've given them something that could properly run UE4 without much fuss, but Nintendo chose not to go that route. Bottom line right there.







