Full text here - http://goo.gl/zQDNY8
Hmmm well that does seem to explain a lot especially when it comes to third party support.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 03:22 AM
Full text here - http://goo.gl/zQDNY8
Hmmm well that does seem to explain a lot especially when it comes to third party support.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:17 AM
it would be digital foundry that release this article. they are having a field day with this on Neogaf... and i quote "cant use lazy developers anymore as an excuse". Either way i know it is more negative than positive. Nintendo made some mistakes no doubt about it.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:25 AM
Posted 11 January 2014 - 04:34 AM
I'm pretty sure Nintendo made mistakes but I'm interested in what the developers for Project Cars would say.
Well there is always a workaround for ANY hardware. "CONSOLES" will always have some sort of bottleneck compared to PC's that are customized to the user wants and needs.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 06:49 AM
Dev's have already said that there have been big improvements on the support from Nintendo, but when you read this in the article,
There are some fleeting parallels between Wii U and the next-gen consoles - the combination of a low-power CPU with a much more powerful graphics chip - but the notion of next-gen titles being easily portable to the Wii U just doesn't work. The gulf in power is just too high, while the GPGPU that we'll see on Xbox One and PlayStation 4 isn't compatible with the older shader model four hardware found in the Wii U.
Things may of changed for the better, but the publishers have already left the WiiU behind, everything is now focused on the PS4 & X1, consoles & games are a circle, you cannot have one without the other, if the userbase is not there why bother spending money on porting or making a game (just) for the WiiU, with the cost of making games getting ever higher the publishers simply won't gamble their money.
How did they get things so wrong ?
SD to HD issues for in house studios,
dev-kits late & not working correctly,
lack of support & delays in getting support,
plus many others,
they had zero idea on the networking side either, they never even tried PSN or Live as nobody at Nintendo used those services !
you have all that then you have the hardware constraints on top
& even then you have all the issues & problems that devs/pubs have had previously with working with Nintendo.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 07:16 AM
they had zero idea on the networking side either, they never even tried PSN or Live as nobody at Nintendo used those services !
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left
Posted 11 January 2014 - 07:28 AM
If this is really true, Then I blame Nintendo big time for a non-vision, arrogance and lazyness. In all those years they should have at least tried xblive and psnetwork. Not only to see what was going on in the world of videogames but also as inspiration. From professional hard- and software creators I expext they should have. This only visualises how Nintendo live in their own world and fail to see what consumers want. Or at least fail to try.
that is what it says in the article !
Posted 11 January 2014 - 08:30 AM
This is a biased article from a very biased site. Take it with a pinch of salt.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 08:38 AM
Posted 11 January 2014 - 09:00 AM
The Wii U was so close yet so far away with their hardware its gonna be too much of a gap again. Devs wont waste time making games for it which is a shame.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 09:15 AM
Did he actually say shader model 5 is incompatable with shader model 4? Thats quite the gaffe.
This quote, "There are some fleeting parallels between Wii U and the next-gen consoles - the combination of a low-power CPU with a much more powerful graphics chip - but the notion of next-gen titles being easily portable to the Wii U just doesn't work. The gulf in power is just too high, while the GPGPU that we'll see on Xbox One and PlayStation 4 isn't compatible with the older shader model four hardware found in the Wii U.'' appears to be misleading, and you know my level of tech understanding.
I am reading between the lines here, and seeing it as someone comparing an HD4850 with an HD7970-7850.
My favorite quote in the article, which creates a contradiction in itself:
"The PlayStation 4 draws over 100W more from the mains than Nintendo's console, and it does so using the latest, most power-efficient x86 cores from AMD in concert with a much larger GPU that's a generation ahead and runs on a much smaller fabrication process - 28nm vs. what I'm reliably informed is the 55nm process from Japanese company Renasas."
First, the latest AMD x86 cores? Like this is something to be proud of? The contradiction of a generation ahead, meaning the Wii U's GPU is based on the HD5XXX/6XXX series, as the 4XXX series would represent 2 generations behind.
There was only one quote I agreed with:
"Other variables such as the recent news regarding China lifting the ban on games consoles may influence Nintendo's future direction. This huge untapped market may provide a lifeline in terms of sales, but with the low wages of the general population these sales might well come from the original Wii, rather than the more expensive Wii U."
I remain somewhat skeptical about the rest, including the part he omits, like not using the full CPU (which we found out later).
Posted 11 January 2014 - 09:36 AM
Many wrong things with this article...
Starting with eurogamer... lol!
No but seriously, ports from xbone/ps4 should be no problem on Wii U as far as I know. It's more of a an economic problem than a hardware one.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 10:08 AM
This quote, "There are some fleeting parallels between Wii U and the next-gen consoles - the combination of a low-power CPU with a much more powerful graphics chip - but the notion of next-gen titles being easily portable to the Wii U just doesn't work. The gulf in power is just too high, while the GPGPU that we'll see on Xbox One and PlayStation 4 isn't compatible with the older shader model four hardware found in the Wii U.'' appears to be misleading, and you know my level of tech understanding.
I am reading between the lines here, and seeing it as someone comparing an HD4850 with an HD7970-7850.
My favorite quote in the article, which creates a contradiction in itself:
"The PlayStation 4 draws over 100W more from the mains than Nintendo's console, and it does so using the latest, most power-efficient x86 cores from AMD in concert with a much larger GPU that's a generation ahead and runs on a much smaller fabrication process - 28nm vs. what I'm reliably informed is the 55nm process from Japanese company Renasas."
First, the latest AMD x86 cores? Like this is something to be proud of? The contradiction of a generation ahead, meaning the Wii U's GPU is based on the HD5XXX/6XXX series, as the 4XXX series would represent 2 generations behind.
There was only one quote I agreed with:
"Other variables such as the recent news regarding China lifting the ban on games consoles may influence Nintendo's future direction. This huge untapped market may provide a lifeline in terms of sales, but with the low wages of the general population these sales might well come from the original Wii, rather than the more expensive Wii U."
I remain somewhat skeptical about the rest, including the part he omits, like not using the full CPU (which we found out later).
Posted 11 January 2014 - 10:40 AM
Oh dear, if all this is old news then & not relevant anymore, why hasn't the WiiU got any third party support & why are we not getting comparable ports of X1 & PS4 games then ?
The guy in the article is talking about what happened at the start, the whole thing was a big mess & the WiiU hasn't recovered.
As for saying that 'we already know the issues at the start' well there were rumours, but Nintendo didn't come out & say until the WiiU has launched that there very own inhouse teams were not skilled enough for the move from SD to HD & thats why the games were delayed, they never said until well i don't think they have said anything only going by what's in the article that Nintendo had not even bothered to look at PSN or Live when working out their own online network, if I had know what i know now i wouldn't of bought a WiiU at launch for £300+.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 12:23 PM
Well, hes definately made some mistakes that are known to be factually false now... But im not thinking this falsifies what he says, i find it more as convincing evidence to just how bad nintendos pre launch support and documentation was.
A lot of this we already knew, or, short of factually knowing, suspected with a heavy conviction. We dont talk about it anymore, because the time is past, but we talked about nintendos non existant documentation a lot back then. It also strongly indicates they insta abandoned the platform right afterwards, without ever figuring out how to use it.... He even specifically states that despite the 3x slower clockspeed that made direct 360/ps3 code pastes horrible, when they accidentally did things right, they got 4x cpu code performance OVER ps360, which they simply never had the time or motivation to capitalize on, as they ditched the platform faster than a dead hooker.
Even studios that did it right, quickly and easily pointed out how missing the launch helped them immensely because of how bad launch support was for multiplatting 3rd parties. Criterion, ER, real Criterion, not the corpse puppet ea just replaced them with, specifically stated as much.
Ha, haven't heard that one used in awhile. I remember reading about the state of the Wii U's development infrastructure around/during launch. It all seemed like speculation, however the games certainly reflected what this individual is saying.
My only issue with this article, its source, and the overall nature revolves around the timing. This appears to be a perfect, momentum killing attack piece. If the comments were limited to the launch window, and when this individual was around, it would be fine. To go on and exclaim the power difference as, 'generational', seems a bit off-putting to me.
To be completely honest, the PS4 does not seem like a generational leap unless you have only been playing on the sub HD Twins. If you have had a PC or even a Wii U with exclusive titles, the leap does not seem so large.
So, the journalistic intent of this article appears to have an agenda with the closing paragraphs (how could he possibly know about porting a PS4 game if he never tries it?).
1. Oh dear, if all this is old news then & not relevant anymore, why hasn't the WiiU got any third party support & why are we not getting comparable ports of X1 & PS4 games then ?
2. The guy in the article is talking about what happened at the start, the whole thing was a big mess & the WiiU hasn't recovered.
3. As for saying that 'we already know the issues at the start' well there were rumours, but Nintendo didn't come out & say until the WiiU has launched that there very own inhouse teams were not skilled enough for the move from SD to HD & thats why the games were delayed, they never said until well i don't think they have said anything only going by what's in the article that Nintendo had not even bothered to look at PSN or Live when working out their own online network, if I had know what i know now i wouldn't of bought a WiiU at launch for £300+.
I have placed numbers by each paragraph, and will respond accordingly:
1. Look at Battlefield 4's recommended PC specs for AMD:
six core cpu (cannot find a recent one clocked under 3ghz)
8Gb ram
7870
3Gb graphics memory (strange, did not know they made a 7870 with 3Gb of memory)
For PS4, we know we have:
8 core Jaguar cpu (under 2ghz)
8Gb memory
roughly a 7850 gpu
Even in the magical console environment, they still had to make compromises to the console builds, as seen in the face-off (http://www.eurogamer...xt-gen-face-off).
They put a lot of work into this, with Sony and Microsoft working with them. Suppose they were willing to make the investment in the Wii U? If the PS4, and even Xbone versions were not cut and paste, I would presume you would need a substantial investment to make the game perform to the best of the console's ability.
The problem would reside with the lack of an incentive to make that investment, which means we will never really know how far apart they are.
2. I agree. Nintendo shareholders deserve answers. What happened with the Wii U, after 4-5 years of avoiding HD development and witnessing the competitions strengths and weaknesses, Nintendo's first HD console should have been incredible. This will cost money with respect to decreases in future earnings, yet part of me believes that they thought the Wii brand would carry the product, and 3rd parties would attract sales for early adopters, while Nintendoland and Mario handled the Wii Sports group. Their botch with regard to operations really cost them dearly.
3. See number 2 for the first part. I can respect Nintendo for not wanting to compete directly. However, the point of business comes down to providing consumer utility. If this cannot be done, across the entire market your product is going to be in, then the product does not need to be in all of those markets. We can look at online and, in addition, the refusal to add a trophy system. They could use coins. It would be so easy for them to do.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 12:35 PM
Oh god a Eurogamer article. That alone makes it BS. They are so anti nintendo and such graphic dude bro whores.
They could tell me cats have tails and still would not believe them. Eurogamer is so full of it it's coming out the ears.
Posted 11 January 2014 - 01:18 PM
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/HTMLPurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php:133) in /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/classAjax.php on line 328
{"success":1,"post":"\n\n
\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t
Posted 11 January 2014 - 02:52 PM
I read it. Sounds like someone's butthurt over Nintendo not doing his job for him.
I disagree, its clear that Nintendo screwed up. No way a developer should have been struggling to get a simple "Hello World" to run on a new console and if the debugger has issues, how exactly do you expect the developer to do their job? Having to GUESS that the network code would work okay because you couldn't run it on proper debugging mode, seriously?
It sounded clear to me that Nintendo made it almost impossible for them to do their job and the end results makes it seem totally plausible. Its perfectly understandable that with a poor experience like that, no developer is going to give it a second chance.
I mean come on, the sheer fact that the WiiU OS is still such a slow laggy mess should be a clue. Sony aren't exactly fantastic when it comes to OS coding but the improvements between PS3 and PS4 are huge, its finally is up to Xbox 360 quality of experience (when ironically the Xbox One seems WORSE). In comparison the WiiU OS experience is just a joke. If the end user experience is poor, I can only imagine how bad the underlying code must be.
I am still very much looking forward to Mario Kart and Zelda, but that's not going to make me say the WiiU is something its not. The only thing I can really say that is positive about the WiiU OS is that the backwards compatibility is fantastic. Although that said, they could easily have made it compatible all the way back to Gamecube and I wouldn't have to go out and buy a Classic Controller to play N64 games. So even there, its not perfect.
Edited by Alex Atkin UK, 11 January 2014 - 02:58 PM.
Sheffield 3DS | Steam & XBOX: Alex Atkin UK | PSN & WiiU: AlexAtkinUK
Posted 11 January 2014 - 03:23 PM
When a programmer learns a new language, or has to migrate their work to a new platform, there are experiences which align perfectly with the anecdotal experiences the author of this article exaggerates.I disagree, its clear that Nintendo screwed up. No way a developer should have been struggling to get a simple "Hello World" to run on a new console and if the debugger has issues, how exactly do you expect the developer to do their job? Having to GUESS that the network code would work okay because you couldn't run it on proper debugging mode, seriously?
No more so than what is to be expected from new hardware from a historically isolated hardware company.It sounded clear to me that Nintendo made it almost impossible for them to do their job and the end results makes it seem totally plausible. Its perfectly understandable that with a poor experience like that, no developer is going to give it a second chance.
The Wii U OS isn't slow at all, and never really was. It's in-line with other console OS's. Now it's faster than even the "next gen" OS's.I mean come on, the sheer fact that the WiiU OS is still such a slow laggy mess should be a clue. Sony aren't exactly fantastic when it comes to OS coding but the improvements between PS3 and PS4 are huge, its finally is up to Xbox 360 quality of experience (when ironically the Xbox One seems WORSE). In comparison the WiiU OS experience is just a joke. If the end user experience is poor, I can only imagine how bad the underlying code must be.
I believe the game the author made was Darksiders 2.I am still very much looking forward to Mario Kart and Zelda, but that's not going to make me say the WiiU is something its not. The only thing I can really say that is positive about the WiiU OS is that the backwards compatibility is fantastic. Although that said, they could easily have made it compatible all the way back to Gamecube and I wouldn't have to go out and buy a Classic Controller to play N64 games. So even there, its not perfect.
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/HTMLPurifier/HTMLPurifier/DefinitionCache/Serializer.php:133) in /home/thewiiu/public_html/ips_kernel/classAjax.php on line 328
{"success":1,"post":"\n\n
\n\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users