The Wii U Won't Be Getting Unreal Engine 4

[Grazza]

It is their marketing that defines the features that are considered to be "next gen" in the first place. These publishers/platform holders and developers work to condition consumers to expect enhanced graphics as the headlining feature of a new console and more importantly, work to set a baseline of what to expect (why do you think the likes of Square Enix, Epic, Capcom and such have been making these public tech demos in the first place?) from any console that they consider to be "next gen".

 

Out of interest, how long do you think this has been going on for? Because I don't think it's conditioning, I just think it's natural. When the SNES and Mega Drive were new, it just seemed right that they were better than the NES and Master System.

 

I think some great points have been made today, and I agree with those who say advancing a generation doesn't necessarily mean you get better games (personally, I've noticed that RPGs aren't "built" as well as they were on the PS2/GameCube), but more capable hardware is still an instinctive aim.

[Guy]

Nintendo were just as guilty of the graphical jumps until the Wii. Back in the NES/SNES era it was about reducing the limitations, now it's all about expanding the possibility.

 

Nintendo are focussed on expanding the possibilities for how we play games. Other companies are more interested in refining the tried and true with a shiny new coat of paint. Both work and we're lucky we have so many options with games these days.

 

To call the visuals on the Wii U "last gen" is hardly an insult. Last/current "gen" looks amazing. But there's no denying it has the approximate capabilities of consoles that will soon be replaced with more powerful versions. Gameplay, however, is a whole other matter.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Guy

[Dcubed]

Out of interest, how long do you think this has been going on for? Because I don't think it's conditioning, I just think it's natural. When the SNES and Mega Drive were new, it just seemed right that they were better than the NES and Master System.

 

I think some great points have been made today, and I agree with those who say advancing a generation doesn't necessarily mean you get better games (personally, I've noticed that RPGs aren't "built" as well as they were on the PS2/GameCube), but more capable hardware is still an instinctive aim.

 

Well back then, better graphics/horsepower tied directly into delivering new game concepts and forms of play. Improving the power of a console allowed it to have more characters onscreen (remember Final Fight and the controversy of how it didn't live up to the arcade version?), faster gameplay (Sonic, MD vs SNES SHMUP games), mode 7, 3D games, larger worlds etc; so the advancement of console horsepower had a direct link to the "quality" of a game's gameplay. You did also see some games sell themselves mainly on their graphical prowess, but they were rarely successful (DKC is probably the most notable example of the 16bit era in that respect).

 

It's never really been console games (the consoles themselves being a different story though) that focused purely on their graphics (with some notable exceptions like DKC and Squaresoft's games - becoming increasingly common in the PS1 era with the likes of FF7 being sold almost as movies rather than games), but rather it's something that mainly came from the PC - with each major game selling themselves based on their technical prowess and the engine that powered them (hi Epic!). Consoles always played second fiddle to arcades in that respect anyway (at least until gen 6, when the Dreamcast came out).

 

While graphics have always been a moderate selling point for console games, I think that it was really with the 6th generation that publishers/developers started actually co-marketing the consoles that ran their games and started working with the console manufacturers to push graphics as the most important part of a game. This is when all those PC developers started getting into making console games (especially on the Xbox) and this is also the last time that horsepower alone could actually remove limitations on game design, so developers could no longer use the new consoles to "brute force" improvements to their games as PS2 level hardware was now capable of powering any type of gameplay experience.

 

The 7th generation brought this to the absolute forefront as graphics were the only improvement that could actually be made to the games themselves (not counting the advent of digital distribution and functional improvements to the online service aspect of games). This is when the likes of EA and Take Two really pushed to price their competition out of the business by raising the minimum standard of graphics/budget as high as they could, so that they could kill off the mid tier of games (which has actually happened) and make it so that only the big budget games could thrive on consoles (which is where they can leverage their capital advantage by turning game development into a factory belt process where they can make games by just throwing hundreds of bodies at a project to make it work)

 

So I suppose it's a bit of both really. It was once a natural process that became unnatural once horsepower no longer dictated game design.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

It is their marketing that defines the features that are considered to be "next gen" in the first place. These publishers/platform holders and developers work to condition consumers to expect enhanced graphics as the headlining feature of a new console and more importantly, work to set a baseline of what to expect (why do you think the likes of Square Enix, Epic, Capcom and such have been making these public tech demos in the first place?) from any console that they consider to be "next gen".

 

They could be making demos that show off interesting game concepts and unique forms of gameplay (like Nintendo first did with those E3 2011 demos that made their way into Nintendo Land and Game & Wario), but instead they prefer to make graphics tech demos because that's what they want to sell.

 

The target market for these consoles want better graphics because that's what they've been conditioned to want. Why would Epic or any of the other major oublishers want to support a console that is made by a console manufacturer that specifically does not focus on graphical horsepower and cinematic games? (Regardless of whether or not the console can run the engine or not) - especially when mobile already allows them to make low budget titles to fund the AAA budget level stuff.

 

You say we're conditioned by these companies to expect graphical improvements, but I'd argue it's more of a natural expectation and progression that happens with pretty much everything. As with phones, tablets, MP3 players and TVs, we expect them to improve in terms of size, performance and where applicable, visual quality. Marketing wouldn't work if we as consumers didn't actually want these improvements - we'd otherwise just stick to a Nokia 3310 and be happy enough with it. It sounds like you're suggesting that before marketing decided to make us want better graphics, we never actually wanted it. Which I'd say to be really quite untrue, not to mention probably impossible to prove.

 

That's why when marketing is hurling around technology that they refer to as 'next gen', I don't really see it as an evil corruption of the term. There are certain technologies such as having an SSD to drastically cut load times and improve system performance that are now affordable that weren't in the previous generation. Technology like that I might therefore consider to be a next gen feature.

[Dcubed]

You say we're conditioned by these companies to expect graphical improvements, but I'd argue it's more of a natural expectation and progression that happens with pretty much everything. As with phones, tablets, MP3 players and TVs, we expect them to improve in terms of size, performance and where applicable, visual quality. Marketing wouldn't work if we as consumers didn't actually want these improvements - we'd otherwise just stick to a Nokia 3310 and be happy enough with it. It sounds like you're suggesting that before marketing decided to make us want better graphics, we never actually wanted it. Which I'd say to be really quite untrue, not to mention probably impossible to prove.

 

That's why when marketing is hurling around technology that they refer to as 'next gen', I don't really see it as an evil corruption of the term. There are certain technologies such as having an SSD to drastically cut load times and improve system performance that are now affordable that weren't in the previous generation. Technology like that I might therefore consider to be a next gen feature.

 

Well, the less powerful consoles have always been the winners of their respective generations (SNES was outclassed by the NeoGeo) and the best selling games aren't typically the best looking ones so I wouldn't say that mainstream consumers care for graphics all that much, despite how much the industry at large desperately wants for them to desire shiny graphics above all else...

[liger05]

Well, the less powerful consoles have always been the winners of their respective generations (SNES was outclassed by the NeoGeo) and the best selling games aren't typically the best looking ones so I wouldn't say that mainstream consumers care for graphics all that much, despite how much the industry at large desperately wants for them to desire shiny graphics above all else...

 

Software will always matter more however I still think the difference this time is a new console has come out which doesn't on the surface produce games that look too different from consoles which came out 7 years ago. If the gamepad isnt something to hook people (the wiimote and wiisports did) then isnt it a difficult sell when people like to think they are purchasing something new?

 

When I think back about when I got the Dreamcast it really didnt matter that the PS2 was coming and was likely to be more powerful than the DC. One look at the games and there was no debate on whether it could do more than the PS1 and N64. Of course not everyone feels like that but if the PS4/720 started to show games that looked the PS3/360 I think they would be stuck like the wii u is.

Edited March 31, 2013 by liger05

[Grazza]

While graphics have always been a moderate selling point for console games, I think that it was really with the 6th generation that publishers/developers started actually co-marketing the consoles that ran their games and started working with the console manufacturers to push graphics as the most important part of a game. This is when all those PC developers started getting into making console games (especially on the Xbox) and this is also the last time that horsepower alone could actually remove limitations on game design, so developers could no longer use the new consoles to "brute force" improvements to their games as PS2 level hardware was now capable of powering any type of gameplay experience.

 

All good points, Dcubed.

 

Personally, I would say there's a simpler explanation - middleware. The 6th gen is the generation when middleware became extremely important (or at least better known). So to me, all this is really about is people becoming more aware of game engines, rather than an extra interest in graphics.

 

Still, as I say, very good points. I would be happy for graphics to take a back seat as long as the games ran better and were once again built as well as they used to be, but that's just me.

[Sheikah]

Well, the less powerful consoles have always been the winners of their respective generations (SNES was outclassed by the NeoGeo) and the best selling games aren't typically the best looking ones so I wouldn't say that mainstream consumers care for graphics all that much, despite how much the industry at large desperately wants for them to desire shiny graphics above all else...

 

But people still do want improved graphical performance, it's basic human desire for technological advancement. It's not because marketing made people want it - if I look at a screenshot of Banjo Kazooie on the N64 vs a screenshot of the Xbox HD remake I can clearly see an improvement. I haven't been brainwashed to think this. :p

 

You could argue that there are some things that are more important than graphics to sell a console - e.g. the Wii had a great pull with motion sensing. But either way, having good hardware certainly helps on top, particularly in ensuring the console can receive many titles people want to play.

[Dcubed]

But people still do want improved graphical performance, it's basic human desire for technological advancement. It's not because marketing made people want it - if I look at a screenshot of Banjo Kazooie on the N64 vs a screenshot of the Xbox HD remake I can clearly see an improvement. I haven't been brainwashed to think this. :p

 

You could argue that there are some things that are more important than graphics to sell a console - e.g. the Wii had a great pull with motion sensing. But either way, having good hardware certainly helps on top, particularly in ensuring the console can receive many titles people want to play.

 

Well yeah of course people will want more than they have, but how many of them really care that much that they'd refuse to buy a console if it did not feature state of the art graphics? (History shows that console specs are not a deciding factor outside of a small circle of fanatics). People buy consoles because they have the games they want to play, not because they have XYZ specs. They buy the new playstations and xboxes because they have to in order to play the new Fifa or COD game - the developers/publishers effectively force them to - and that big graphical leap is the main weapon that they have in their arsenal to encourage them to make the jump to "next gen" because they don't have a big gameplay leap to use instead.

[Sheikah]

If you look at all of history it isn't really relevant.

 

The reason for this is that in the past there was a far greater focus on exclusives and far fewer multiformat titles, so there was more reason to buy one console over another. Now many titles that people want to play are released on multiple consoles. This kinda makes sense - more people to get to play the game, and the game devs get more money. But if one console is unable to run a game, it's going to miss out.

 

This isn't an evil campaign by game devs to make people come to expect great graphics and force people to buy high spec consoles to play them on.

 

Rather I see having good graphics as one aspect and basically a good thing, as well as having good games and features. It's just progression really.

[Dcubed]

If you look at all of history it isn't really relevant.

 

The reason for this is that in the past there was a far greater focus on exclusives and far fewer multiformat titles, so there was more reason to buy one console over another. Now many titles that people want to play are released on multiple consoles. This kinda makes sense - more people to get to play the game, and the game devs get more money. But if one console is unable to run a game, it's going to miss out.

 

This isn't an evil campaign by game devs to make people come to expect great graphics and force people to buy high spec consoles to play them on.

 

Rather I see having good graphics as one aspect and basically a good thing, as well as having good games and features. It's just progression really.

 

If developers wanted to, they could have made their games run on Wii with downgraded graphics. They didn't want to because Nintendo's vision for the industry does not fit with the types of games/quasi-interactive movies they want to make and the major publishers' desire to kill off the little guys by raising the minimum budget standard.

 

Those major multiplatform titles couldn't sell on Wii because they weren't available on Wii (though in some cases where the Wii did get multiplatform titles, like Rayman Origins, Tiger Woods, Guitar Hero and Rock Band, the Wii version was actually the best selling one).

 

Now the specs gap is much smaller this time around (and indeed, the Wii U is currently the most powerful console available) and yet it STILL doesn't get any support outside of Ubisoft and Activision - not even multiplatform PS360 games, which it could very easily run! The decision to not make Wii U versions of games like Tomb Raider or GTA5 would've been made long before the console came out (they did announce the console back in 2011, so it's not like developers didn't know about the machine's existence or couldn't get access to dev kits), so it's not a matter of games getting cancelled due to poor sales (Crysis 3 being a possible exception, but I would think that more likely to be due to EA's failed attempt to make Origin the Wii U's exclusive online service)

 

Nintendo has never been liked by western developers/publishers in general as they philosophically do not match up with the western gaming industry by and large.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

If developers wanted to, they could have made their games run on Wii with downgraded graphics. They didn't want to because Nintendo's vision for the industry does not fit with the types of games/quasi-interactive movies they want to make and the major publishers' desire to kill off the little guys by raising the minimum budget standard.

 

Those major multiplatform titles couldn't sell on Wii because they weren't available on Wii (though in some cases where the Wii did get multiplatform titles, like Rayman Origins, Tiger Woods, Guitar Hero and Rock Band, the Wii version was actually the best selling one).

 

If there's 2 popular consoles that can run the games at full potential then devs will make the games to run well on them. They're not going to handicap the games for all three systems because one of them can't run it, that just wouldn't make sense and is basically making a game worse in one aspect to satisfy a minority group of gamers. Equally making a scaled down version (that people will ultimately want less) represents more effort, hence why the Wii didn't see many of these games.

 

Remember, having comparable specs is just an enabler to allow the system to run many of the popular multiformat titles- game devs making a game for PS3 have no requirement to make 'movie' type games just because the ability to do so exists. Hell - just look at many really fun low power titles like 3D Dot Game Heroes or games like Scott Pilgrim and Castle Crashers.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Sheikah

[Dcubed]

If there's 2 popular consoles that can run the games at full potential then devs will make the games to run well on them. They're not going to handicap the games for all three systems because one of them can't run it, that just wouldn't make sense and is basically making a game worse in one aspect to satisfy a minority group of gamers. Equally making a scaled down version (that people will ultimately want less) represents more effort, hence why the Wii didn't see many of these games.

 

Remember, having comparable specs is just an enabler - game devs making a game for Wii have no requirement to make 'movies' as you're saying, hell - just look at many really fun titles like 3D Dot Game Heroes or games like Scott Pilgrim and Castle Crashers.

 

Well when I'm talking about movie games and a focus on graphics over gameplay, I'm referring to the major publishers and big developers like EA rather than the indie devs who make awesome stuff like the games you mentioned. These big devs could've developed Wii versions of games that utilised the Wii's motion controls to provide an enhanced gameplay experience that couldn't be done on other consoles if they cared to do so, but that's not their bread and butter. They want to deliver experiences, targeted towards 12-25 year old frat boys that make them feel awesome and graphics play a big role in delivering those experiences.

[Sheikah]

The PS3 and 360 have motion controls too now though. Really the only reason I think that Indie games are more prone to reaching the PS3 and 360 is the bigger audience of gamers who want those kinds of games.

[dazzybee]

You are almost exactly the same with anything Nintendo, always aggressively pushing your two cents in the form of badly formatted posts down people's throats.

 

There really is irony overload in this topic.

 

I criticise Nintendo as much as I suck them off. But, I admit I love NIntendo as a company, their history, what the stand for, the controllers and games they make.

 

Badly formatted posts? I presume you meaning spelling and grammar? Blame my ipad for that and my un-editing approach to posting.

 

That's right. Un-editing!

[liger05]

Nintendo has never been liked by western developers/publishers in general as they philosophically do not match up with the western gaming industry by and large.

 

While there maybe some truth in that you can't ignore the huge royalty fees Nintendo charged third parties.

[Zechs Merquise]

I dont know if they hate them I just think Nintendo made a console without western developers in mind. Nintendo produce hardware first and foremost for there own 1st party development teams and have every right to do so but come the next console they produce I think that strategy will change.

 

I don't think Nintendo made the console without Western Devs in mind. I think Western devs simply aren't interested in Nintendo because most of them are simply focused on pushing graphical limits and developing games that rarely sell well on Nintendo consoles. Sadly Western devs know that shooters sell best and shooters don't sell best on Nintendo consoles.

 

Listen dude I have no agenda I only post news stories. Whether they are positive or negative it doesnt matter I'm just posting wii u news.

 

If the guy said UE4 was coming to wii u I would of gladly posted that as well but he didnt so please dont imply that I got nothing better to do than post negative wii u stories.

 

But positive stories don't get posted and when they do they get buried in the negative ones. You are one of the most negative people on this forum.

 

For sure. Except they lost a lot of their core fan base last gen, whom they relied upon during the GC days. Don't bet the horse on casuals. They aren't predictable in the slightest.

 

Everyone bets the horse on the casuals. All consoles that sell big numbers do so because they appeal to 'casuals'. Just because the casuals play COD, Battlefield and FIFA doesn't make them 'core' gamers'. The core gamers - people who go on forums and actively follow gaming through the gaming media are a very small portion of the industry.

 

Sony and MS court a different brand of casual gamer. What's more neither the PS3 nor the 360 had significant sales until they both had significant price drops. The biggest problem with the Wii U is the price and the lack of advertising - they are two of the most crucial points for any console.

 

The Wii didn't have Battlefield or a whole host of other games. It did fine because it was advertised well and at £175 for a console and a game it hit a sweet spot. Walk into Tesco this weekend and you'll have seen a black 360 and Halo 4, Tomb Raider and Gears 3 for £199 and a 12gb PS3 and a game for £135. They're selling well because it's a price and a deal that can be easily justified to people who will impulse buy but aren't 'core' gamers.

 

The Wii U is selling for £300 for just Nintendo Land. That's not exactly going to compete is it? If any console solely aimed it's output at 'core' gamers it would sell at most 20 million units.

 

Not surprised at all. While the Wii U is more powerful than "current" gen, it's a far cry in power from the PS4.

 

I will say it again, Microsoft and Sony have fucked the gaming industry up with the current gen. By moving to loss leading hardware, they've made it near impossible for gaming only companies (i.e. Nintendo) to duplicate it. MS and Sony both have lost so much money with their consoles and have yet to recoup those losses, though I believe Microsoft is close now thanks to Live. If Nintendo were to follow suit and go with massively powerful hardware as per the PS4, then they'd go bankrupt within a year.

 

Even developers are feeling it, with dozens having folded in the last few years and even more to come. Even Ubisoft has said that the continuing increases in development are unsustainable. Look at Tomb Raider; it has sold 3.4 million units in the first month and is considered a failure. For that reason, I can see smaller developers shifting to Wii U over the next three years.

 

People like Mark Rein care only about specs and create stuff for top spec machines, as such of course his new engine won't support a comparatively low-end console.

 

However, the way he announced it was just unprofessional. Sure say it's not what you're aiming at, but laugh and then encourage the entire hall to laugh? That's just ridiculous. The contempt western developers seem to have for Nintendo is astonishing

 

MS and Sony will release their new consoles at a loss, something which Nintendo never does. But the last generation was a disaster for Sony, they lost over $5 billion on the PS3 over its lifetime. Even a company like Sony can't afford to do that forever.

 

The point you're missing is that until the Wii, a new generation of consoles meant a leap in power. Just because Nintendo started making machines that are one gen behind doesn't mean everyone has to adapt their definitions to suit them.

 

Secondly, please explain how you are more qualified to define a generation than Mark Rein.

 

Because generations are clearly defined by age - not by anything else. A generation is a time span - simple. Only an idiot would argue against that. Plus, it's only now that gamers have started trying to measure generations by an arbitrary leap in power. Every man and their dog classed the PS3, 360 and Wii as the same generation and the Wii was clearly less powerful. Not 'next gen' is just a silly anti-Nintendo slur. The Ouya will be released this 'gen' and its clearly less powerful than any of the systems on the market.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Grazza

[Serebii]

MS and Sony will release their new consoles at a loss, something which Nintendo never does. But the last generation was a disaster for Sony, they lost over $5 billion on the PS3 over its lifetime. Even a company like Sony can't afford to do that forever.

 

Exactly. Nintendo did with the 3DS price cut (which has now turned around, and was majorly responsible for their losses in the second half of 2011), and they're at a slight loss with the Wii U, I believe they now break even/profit if the attach-rate is like 2 for every console, which it currently is, so it's all good.

 

But that's my point. Everyone complaining wants Nintendo to do a massively powerful console and that just isn't financially logical. Nintendo are a business, and basically people are wanting them to collapse in order to please fanboys.

 

Yes, the Wii U isn't setting things on fire, or even making much of a spark at the moment, but once Nintendo starts releasing their stuff, it will.

 

Sure, a Gamecube level in sales is possible, maybe probable, but when every single unit is at a profit, that is not a failure in any sense of the word and people need to learn that and accept it.

 

Hell, I've spent 32 hours since Wednesday playing Lego City: Undercover and 9 hours playing Luigi's Mansion 2. I'm happy with things as they are :p

Edited April 1, 2013 by Serebii

[Hero-of-Time]

Liger isn't doing anything wrong. He is just posting news/stories, just as other sites are. Are people now taking offence to that? It's not his fault that the stories circulating don't paint a picture of Nintendo being a shining beacon of gaming hope. Again, he just posts the stories, not write them.

 

Feel free to keep bickering. I will be away playing on video games.

[madeinbeats]

Liger isn't doing anything wrong. He is just posting news/stories, just as other sites are. Are people now taking offence to that? It's not his fault that the stories circulating don't paint a picture of Nintendo being a shining beacon of gaming hope. Again, he just posts the stories, not write them.

 

Feel free to keep bickering. I will be away playing on video games.

 

Nope he isn't, and Wii isn't either - I imagine no one here has anything personal against either of them and seem like perfectly benign (in a good way) members. If you're gonna' do it though, you can't complain when people call you out; especially seeing as there's a negative member of the year award lol, which Wii currently holds!

 

This last bit isn't to be replied to, but

this topic was never thread worthy - there's been sweet FA worthwhile info come out of it and should have been closed after the 2nd page (1st preferably.)

 

"Hahaha - No! [why? repercussions? meaning? on mobile but not Wii U? discuss further...]"

 

He actually now says on Twitter he laughed because the question only included Wii U, not PS360!!! You know, the same Xbox and PS3 at the very end of their life cycles, and Wii U only 4 months old!!

 

I might not be the head of Epic, but you can't piss on my leg tell me it's raining either.

 

Edited April 1, 2013 by madeinbeats

[liger05]

I don't think Nintendo made the console without Western Devs in mind. I think Western devs simply aren't interested in Nintendo because most of them are simply focused on pushing graphical limits and developing games that rarely sell well on Nintendo consoles. Sadly Western devs know that shooters sell best and shooters don't sell best on Nintendo consoles.

 

Do shooters sell best? COD is commercial beast but there are plenty FPS shooters that have failed flopped. I think western trends suggest other genre of games are hugely commercial successful.

 

But that's my point. Everyone complaining wants Nintendo to do a massively powerful console and that just isn't financially logical. Nintendo are a business, and basically people are wanting them to collapse in order to please fanboys.

 

Not me. I would of just preferred a a significant jump from PS3/360.

 

Yes, the Wii U isn't setting things on fire, or even making much of a spark at the moment, but once Nintendo starts releasing their stuff, it will.

 

Sure, a Gamecube level in sales is possible, maybe probable, but when every single unit is at a profit, that is not a failure in any sense of the word and people need to learn that and accept it.

 

Iwata - "I do not intend to declare how many Wii we will be selling today, but Wii will be a failure if it cannot sell far more than GameCube did. In fact, we shouldn't continue this business if our only target is to outsell GameCube. Naturally, we are making efforts so that Wii will show a far greater result than GameCube."

 

There is no way Nintendo will be happy if the Wii U sells like the Gamecube did regardless if its all profit. I dont think they expect wii sales but 20 million would be a failure.

Edited April 1, 2013 by liger05

[Grazza]

Because generations are clearly defined by age - not by anything else. A generation is a time span - simple. Only an idiot would argue against that.

 

First of all, don't call me an idiot.

 

Secondly, this is exactly the problem - you think it's OK to insult those who disagree with you. The truth is there is no universal agreement on what a console generation is. It's not the same thing as the dictionary definition of generation, and even if it was there's no need to be rude about it.

 

The anger is only flowing one way - towards people who are not including the Wii U as next gen, not the other way round.

 

But that's my point. Everyone complaining wants Nintendo to do a massively powerful console and that just isn't financially logical. Nintendo are a business, and basically people are wanting them to collapse in order to please fanboys.

 

I'm not even sure people are saying Nintendo should do that. Just for argument's sake, it may well be that Sony and Microsoft have got it "wrong" and have advanced technology too much. I think this thread is more about seeing reality as it is rather than saying Nintendo is wrong to not keep up with Unreal Engine 4.

 

Nope he isn't, and Wii isn't either - I imagine no one here has anything personal against either of them and seem like perfectly benign (in a good way) members. If you're gonna' do it though, you can't complain when people call you out; especially seeing as there's a negative member of the year award lol, which Wii currently holds!

 

Not really. I don't see why liger05 should be "called out" for posting a story. People should comment on the story, not the person who posted it. A "negative member" to some is a great contributor to others. Forums need people to report news stories!

[Serebii]

I'm not even sure people are saying Nintendo should do that. Just for argument's sake, it may well be that Sony and Microsoft have got it "wrong" and have advanced technology too much. I think this thread is more about seeing reality as it is rather than saying Nintendo is wrong to not keep up with Unreal Engine 4.

 

Go to GAF and various other places across the internet. Many are saying it.

 

Do shooters sell best? COD is commercial beast but there are plenty FPS shooters that have failed flopped. I think western trends suggest other genre of games are hugely commercial successful.

 

We're at the point where publishers are requesting that characters get guns on the boxarts even if they don't use a gun in the game. Guns and shooters sell.

 

There is no way Nintendo will be happy if the Wii U sells like the Gamecube did regardless if its all profit. I dont think they expect wii sales but 20 million would be a failure.

 

Disappointment sure, not happy, probably. However it'd not be a failure because it makes money.

Edited April 1, 2013 by Serebii
Automerged Doublepost

[The-chosen-one]

i read an article about this, that developers can use Unreal engine 4 to create games for the wiiU, only epic games will not use is for wiiU

 

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/03/epic_games_developers_can_use_unreal_engine_4_for_wii_u_titles

[madeinbeats]

Not really. I don't see why liger05 should be "called out" for posting a story. People should comment on the story, not the person who posted it. A "negative member" to some is a great contributor to others. Forums need people to report news stories!

 

I never said he or anyone else should be called out for 'a' story. Can we please drop the point scoring and assertiveness competitions and close this cesspool of a thread already.