By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Geoff Keighley says Unreal Engine 4 wont run on Wii U

ethomaz on 29 May 2012

New reply on NeoGAF.

"Crazy thread! This isn't new news guys. When I interviewed Mike Capps at GDC for GTTV, I asked him on camera about whether UE4 was targeted for Wii-U, and he said that no, UE3 is more in line with Wii-U(or something like that). That's all I was referencing in the @ reply."

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=38297316&postcount=744 



Around the Network
Attoyou on 29 May 2012
Mr Khan said:
My money was on no UE4 support, but because of Epic's massive bias and not for any other reason. Hell, i doubt UE3 will be "officially" supported.





Atto Suggests...:

Book - Malazan Book of the Fallen series 

Game - Metro Last Light

TV - Deadwood

Music - Forest Swords 

happydolphin on 29 May 2012
Asriel said:

My wider point was that Nintendo have never really played the pure graphics game, and the more they played the technology game, the more it cost them. I wouldn't deny N64 was a powerful machine (given I owned both that and a PS1), but between decisions like sticking with cartridges, the limited texture cache and Z-buffering, and the difficulty of developing for it, Nintendo really did shoot themselves in the foot when it came to competing with PlayStation.

But Nintendo wasn't competing with the Playstation! They wanted to be the best, without argument, no matter the worms that challenged them. And that's what they were (graphically speaking) with the N64. It was the best.

Their mistakes in architecture are just as bad as Sony's overkill with the cell. Your blame of Nintendo is horribly one-sided. Did you see MS sell their 360 at 600$? I didn't! The Playstation was 500$ in Canada when it released, the N64 was 350$.  For a much better graphically capable console, I had a better price. The Playstation was not Nintendo's enemy, Nintendo was. They made aweful decisions I won't argue that, but none of them had to do with them wanting to be the more graphically capable console. Are you telling me that they would have had less graphical capability had they gone optical? Their choice for cartridges goes way beyond graphics, and is a much much more complex matter.

The limited texture cache as I said had lots of workarounds, there are articles in Wikipedia on that, it wasn't a show-stopper. The difficulty of developing for the N64 was an N64 issue, not a Nintendo issue. They worked with a 3rd party called Silicon Graphics and I'm not sure that worked so well in the end result in terms of developer-friendliness. Look at the Cube, still good old Nintendo, all issues resolved. It was (so they say) easy to develop for, moreso than the PS2 with the emotion engine. You're gonna tell me I'm using the improvement argument and it doesn't count, but Sony entered the market in that same generation, so starting from there on out is fair game.

Nintendo has played the pure graphics game for many years, and yes, they marketed the SNES as a "16-bit" machine. It mattered to them. They called their consoles Super and Ultra for a reason, they were competing in a market where capability mattered. Your view on Nintendo is revisionism and desperately at that.

Even in the trivial handheld market, Nintendo stayed graphically relevant without sacrificing other more important portability considerations (form-factor, battery life, price, quality and variety of games). The Game Boy Advance did one thing better than its predecessor, and that's graphics.

@attoyou. Your face sigs are not funny!



Jereel Hunter on 29 May 2012
PullusPardus said:
That means no shitty looking games on wiiu :)


Incorrect - Wii games will probably play on it.



Mr Khan on 29 May 2012
Attoyou said:
Mr Khan said:
My money was on no UE4 support, but because of Epic's massive bias and not for any other reason. Hell, i doubt UE3 will be "officially" supported.



I'd call it 50/50, quite honestly. Epic's language here is that "our plans are unconfirmed" which, when regards anyone talking about Nintendo, usually means "hell no," and that this would apply for any unreal support whatsoever. Epic has a history of Nintendo trolling, as well. Given that their business does seem to be doing fairly well while still having nothing to do with Nintendo, they can afford to continue as they see fit, but the irrationality of it needs to be acknowledged.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
happydolphin on 29 May 2012
VGKing said:
happydolphin said:
And they will get it. They are not stupid and their strategy is pretty clear at this point, they want the core, last thing they want to be is the odd man out. They will likely up the HW enough for Epic to also play its part and dumb-down what needs to be dumbed-down.

Hell, if UE3 can run on an iPad, then UE4 can be made to run on the WiiU if desperately needed, even if certain features are lost.


Of course they do, but they also want the casuals. And Casuals > Core 
Releasing an affordable next-gen console is Nintendo's priority.

Iwata begs to differ.

Iwata said:

Q7 Reporter said:

My question may sound antithetic, but let me ask you this regardless of whether my idea may fit Nintendo or not. Nintendo’s basic strategy for revitalizing the financial performance has long been “the expansion of the gaming population.” I said my question may sound antithetic because I am going to ask “Is it appropriate to pursue this goal?” In my view, the index of “the number of users per family,” which is something Nintendo management has prioritized as one of the important indices, does not necessarily have a strong relationship with a single year or multiple year profits. The expansion of the gaming population is, so to speak, something Nintendo should carry on eternally. Therefore, for the purpose of the revitalization from now, is it necessary to establish more specific goals to which progress can be confirmed? I assume that the digital distribution of the packaged software is something developed probably based on the company’s analytical view or decision that the time has come to begin this business. Having said that, however, should the message conveyed from Nintendo be “this is something we would like to implement” by constructing win-win relationships between retailers and Nintendo rather than the concept of consumers’ choice? I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Right now, we are in a tough situation in terms of the financial performance, so it is probably fair for you to wonder whether what Nintendo has exercised was off point. On the other hand, we wonder what would have happened to the video game industry if we had not made efforts to expand the gaming population, and whether you would be able to see a bright future for a kind of entertainment in which the number of new consumers was not increasing. From these viewpoints, my belief has not changed at all. Without making efforts to increase the number of new consumers and make video games accepted positively by society, we cannot expect a brighter future than now, so we will continue to make these efforts.

However, if you ask us whether everything Nintendo has done was right or whether we would use the same tactics if the company’s policy or strategy remains the same, there are issues to overcome. For example, the Wii was able to reach a large number of new consumers who had never played games before by bringing hands-on experiences with its “Wii Sports” and “Wii Fit.” However, we could not adequately create the situation that such new consumers played games frequently or for long, consistent periods. As a result, we could not sustain a good level of profit. Moreover, regrettably, what we prioritized in order to reach out to the new audience was a bit too far from what we prioritized for those who play games as their hobby. Consequently, we presume some people felt that the Wii was not a game system for them or they were not willing to play with the Wii even though some compelling games had been released. In comparison with what we did with the Nintendo DS and the Wii, with respect to your view this time that the introduction of the software that contributes to expanding the user base for the Nintendo 3DS platform is delayed, we are doing along the lines of what we intended to do to a certain extent. Once consumers have a notion that “this system is not for us,” we have learned that it is extremely difficult to change their perceptions later. Therefore, in promoting the Nintendo 3DS and the Wii U, we have announced that we would like “width” and “depth” to coexist. With the Nintendo DS and the Wii, the approach of “width” was well accepted by many people; however, what we did in terms of “depth” was not satisfactory for some consumers. This time, we would like consumers to be satisfied in both aspects. In order to do so, we started to work on the “depth” aspect first, and the current and existing software you can see for the Nintendo 3DS is based on that idea. In the future, the approach will evolve. By exploring the development both from width and depth standpoints, it is our intention to satisfy a wider audience with one gaming platform. Our approach for the Wii U is basically the same. By doing so continuously, we are expecting that the number of game users per household will increase and as the gaming population increases, we believe we can create a sustainable video game market. We would like to materialize what I have said for both the Nintendo 3DS and the Wii U in the future.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/120427qa/03.html

 

 

We would like to materialize what I have said for both the Nintendo 3DS and the Wii U in the future.

And for this, UE4 is a must, at least in the west.

The goal being:



WiiBox3 on 29 May 2012
VGKing said:
Not surprising at all.
I already knew UE4 would never run on the Wii U.


Never say never. UE3 is now running on the iPhone. We don't know how versitile future versions of UE4 will be.



VGKing on 29 May 2012
WiiBox3 said:
VGKing said:
Not surprising at all.
I already knew UE4 would never run on the Wii U.


Never say never. UE3 is now running on the iPhone. We don't know how versitile future versions of UE4 will be.


It's not the same thing that runs on PS3/360. it's a severely dumbed down engine running on mobile platforms.



happydolphin on 29 May 2012
VGKing said:
WiiBox3 said:
VGKing said:
Not surprising at all.
I already knew UE4 would never run on the Wii U.


Never say never. UE3 is now running on the iPhone. We don't know how versitile future versions of UE4 will be.


It's not the same thing that runs on PS3/360. it's a severely dumbed down engine running on mobile platforms.

Yes, and severely dumbed down it will not be for the WiiU, as far as everyone in their right minds can tell. This is not PS3 to iPad, it's PS4 to WiiU, and no, the PS4 will not be UE4 ready out of the box, that would require very powerful hardware. The PS4 will also have a dumbed version itself.



superchunk on 29 May 2012

Probably already brought up, but title is wrong.

He simply repeated the last confirmation that UE3 is on Wii U... that says nothing about it being capable to run UE4.

With all the reports that the final kits are out and have been increased in power, I'm thinking UE4 will be there.