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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Bethesda/Gearbox point out why they don't support Wii U

Incubi on 03 September 2013

Cerny actually said that he was threatened by a 3rd party publisher when he revealed the early specs for PS4. They basically said that "if you go with that, you're fucked". Meaning they would not support PS4.

It is said that it shocked him to hear them say that. So he went back to the drawing board.

How would Nintendo act in this situation, as they feel no need to bend over backwards?



Around the Network
DevilRising on 03 September 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Exactly. They are all saying the same thing. Especially the known PC devs who have the highest standard.


Sorry, but claiming that Bethesda and Gearbox, both know for somewhat shoddy development and various other issues, having the "highest standard", is laughable. There's no point trying to say other people here have a clear bias when you display one yourself.



Carl on 03 September 2013
UltimateUnknown said:

-Nintendo's online is subpar when next gen seems to be focusing more and more on the co-op/competitive experience.


This is alarming.

Bethesda struggle to make single player games that work well, so Bethesdas quality assurance team is going to shit its pants in the coming Years.



                            

Licence on 03 September 2013
UltimateUnknown said:

-Nintendo's online is subpar when next gen seems to be focusing more and more on the co-op/competitive experience.


i.e. Nintendo won't allow us to make our games "on-line only", which means we can't kill the second hand market.



S.T.A.G.E. on 03 September 2013
TheLastStarFighter said:
There is some truth to what Bethesda is saying here. Because MS and Sony are not in the games business to make money, 3rd parties can go to them and say "make a system with these specs!", and they will do it, because they don't need to make money and do need 3rd party support for their division to stay relevant. Nintendo, on the other hand, can't and won't lose large amounts of money on hardware so that 3rd parties can have the specs they want. Whether the audience will buy their product is another matter - I think it will but certainly the early Wii U sales indicate a younger audience has been the early adopters.

I think Nintendo did anticipate slightly weaker offerings from Sony and MS. It was widely known that 3rd parties were asking for upwards of 8gig of RAM. Usually hardware makers give them less than what they want, so I think Nintendo was expecting 4 gigs on PS4, keeping the 2 gigs on Wii U reasonably close. I think this is a result of Sony switching to the paid online model like MS. Nintendo really needs to adapt this model as it has allowed Sony and MS to hide the true cost of their systems in yearly fees. The PS4 and XB1 would be money-losing disasters if not for the extra $50 owners will be paying each year. If Nintendo also had such revenue it could have up-spec'd the Wii U considerably.


Nintendo could've afforded to make the Wii U more powerful, as the devs said and has been said year after year, gen after gen. They don't consult with anyone, they do what they want to do and when everyone else has worked with third party on what they want to make as well as what they like, Nintendo is left. The only time Nintendo gets the support is if Nintendo is working within spec range. Next gen its just not happening. When the 360 and PS3 get cut off the Wii U is cut off. Nintendo only has themselves to blame.



Around the Network
Roma on 03 September 2013

but who will give us Nintendians a buggy game if not them? :(



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

S.T.A.G.E. on 03 September 2013
DevilRising said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
 

Exactly. They are all saying the same thing. Especially the known PC devs who have the highest standard.


Sorry, but claiming that Bethesda and Gearbox, both know for somewhat shoddy development and various other issues, having the "highest standard", is laughable. There's no point trying to say other people here have a clear bias when you display one yourself.


Come on now, bro. This is really starting to get out of hand. Ok....so the resources third party would have to allocate to not only down port  badly to the Wii U, and lower the scale of their games and graphics. but they would also have to come up with their own resources to create a secondary experience for the controller. Within the next year and a half there would be no point. To boot they would have to have even more resources to invest exclusively into the Wii U's controller. No, bro.....just no. You've got to open your eyes and see who is forcing who to do what, when they've already had a plan of what to give to their fanbase for a while. Console makers should only be so lucky to get third party titles on their console. Third parties had to bend over backwards for Nintendo and their wishes in the 80's and 90's. That all changed when the HD twins came into the industry. No one has to bend over to Nintendo any longer. Look up Nintendo's history, its is not third parties forcing them to bend but Nintendo not working with them.



S.T.A.G.E. on 03 September 2013
Licence said:
UltimateUnknown said:

-Nintendo's online is subpar when next gen seems to be focusing more and more on the co-op/competitive experience.


i.e. Nintendo won't allow us to make our games "on-line only", which means we can't kill the second hand market.


Um...Microsoft tried to do that and failed. Wrong, buddy.



burninmylight on 03 September 2013
outlawauron said:
Nem said:
outlawauron said:
Nem said:
The online on Nintendo is just as good as the others. The onlie persistant worlds they are trying to do on ps4/x1 will flop hard. There arent enough players to populate all those games.

Nem, you have multiple consoles, how can you believe this? Online is the biggest separator from Nintendo and Sony/MS (and I kinda struggle to put Sony at the same level of MS).


They both have shops and they both have online play that works. The only visible difference i see are the persistant online worlds that Sony, Microsoft and others are touting for the PS4 and X1. I think those will die out pretty fast and become unplayable because of the lack of population. So in the end i dont see that as beeing that big of a difference.

You can point out that Sony makes better online sales then the other two. I will agree to that. I havent felt any noticeable difference in online play quality across all my systems. Oh and a common handle is not something i care about. It only makes sense for achievement hunters.

There's far more to an online platform than just its shop (which is far worse than others in setup and it's still frustrating that they charge tax), and the quality of online play which varies game by game (whether or not it has dedicated servers).


Tax depends on your state/country. I live in Oklahoma and I don't pay a penny more than the price of a game. Does MS and Sony not charge for tax across all areas?



TheLastStarFighter on 03 September 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
There is some truth to what Bethesda is saying here. Because MS and Sony are not in the games business to make money, 3rd parties can go to them and say "make a system with these specs!", and they will do it, because they don't need to make money and do need 3rd party support for their division to stay relevant. Nintendo, on the other hand, can't and won't lose large amounts of money on hardware so that 3rd parties can have the specs they want. Whether the audience will buy their product is another matter - I think it will but certainly the early Wii U sales indicate a younger audience has been the early adopters.

I think Nintendo did anticipate slightly weaker offerings from Sony and MS. It was widely known that 3rd parties were asking for upwards of 8gig of RAM. Usually hardware makers give them less than what they want, so I think Nintendo was expecting 4 gigs on PS4, keeping the 2 gigs on Wii U reasonably close. I think this is a result of Sony switching to the paid online model like MS. Nintendo really needs to adapt this model as it has allowed Sony and MS to hide the true cost of their systems in yearly fees. The PS4 and XB1 would be money-losing disasters if not for the extra $50 owners will be paying each year. If Nintendo also had such revenue it could have up-spec'd the Wii U considerably.


Nintendo could've afforded to make the Wii U more powerful, as the devs said and has been said year after year, gen after gen. They don't consult with anyone, they do what they want to do and when everyone else has worked with third party on what they want to make as well as what they like, Nintendo is left. The only time Nintendo gets the support is if Nintendo is working within spec range. Next gen its just not happening. When the 360 and PS3 get cut off the Wii U is cut off. Nintendo only has themselves to bla

It's not gen after gen. It's a very recent thing. And Nintendo was very wise to make Wii so weak. Time will tell if it was wise to not spec the Wii U a little better.