I wish people would stop the talk about power, engines, shaders, ease of development and all the other bull that has been thrown around when anyone can see it is nothing more than a business decision. The reason is simple. They think the userbase for the game will be bigger on PS4 and XBO so those are the two they have gone with.
Technology is part of the cost side of the business equation. You can't just ignore it
What you can do though is something like what Child of Light did. They couldn't magically increase the size of the potential audience on Wii U, so instead they cut costs by making a smaller game.
This is a publisher's decision, not developers.....but why are you singling out the West?
Its not like Capcom, Square, Atlus, or any other notable Japanese publishers are dumping a bunch of software onto the Wii U.
But when its a franchise that fits Nintendo's demographic, it's pretty much guaranteed to be on their platform assuming its a multiplat.
That means nothing. Is every JRPG supposed to be released on Sony hardware?
It means everything. Games like Manhunt and CoD aren't going to sell well with a younger audience, and as expected they sold poorly. Games like Rayman: Origins and Sonic do, and as expected they sell better. If companies are following the money, it makes much more sense that a game might not be on Nintendo's platform. I'm not saying that I'm glad it's happening or anything, but it's understandable.
But you really want to focus on multiplats here, because those are less dependent on other factors. For example we don't see Tales games launch multiplat because the development team for such games is kept quite small. We see a lot of Level-5 games on Sony systems because Level-5 has a good relationship with Sony. We see a lot of MarvelousAQL titles on Nintendo systems for the same respective reasons. The only really perpetrator in Japan that's not putting a Multiplat game on a Nintendo system despite the fact that it would sell fine is Squeenix with Kingdom Hearts 3.
Sorry, but every game isn't going to be released on a platform where there is an audience. Bandai Namco released a Pac Man game this year that didn't come to the Wii U...and guess what? The sky isnt falling. There's also situations where games with little to no audience get released on hardware, like FPS games on the 3DS.
Making assumptions about publishers will get you nowhere since each one has a different situation with each game. We're talking about a Tetris game by the way and I'm willing to bet that the game doesnt need to be on multiple platforms or light up the sales charts for the publishers to make a profit off the game.
There are barely any FPS games on 3DS... What Pac-man game didn't come to Wii U? Last time I checked Ghostly Adventures did make it on Wii U. Yes, there are exceptions, which I explained, of developers trying to capitalize on something else, but more often than not, developers have followed the money. The Wii U to western devs is really the only exception I've seen to this
Just because a Tetris game can do well without the Nintendo system doesn't mean it can't do better with it.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
I wish people would stop the talk about power, engines, shaders, ease of development and all the other bull that has been thrown around when anyone can see it is nothing more than a business decision. The reason is simple. They think the userbase for the game will be bigger on PS4 and XBO so those are the two they have gone with.
Technology is part of the cost side of the business equation. You can't just ignore it
What you can do though is something like what Child of Light did. They couldn't magically increase the size of the potential audience on Wii U, so instead they cut costs by making a smaller game.
Yeah I agree.
If you look at the data for arkham orogins and city, they each sold around .200k copies on wii u. Compare that to the nearly 5 million copies the ps3 version sold and the picture gets really clear.
Anyone who says that anything technical, whether it be the cycles per second of the processor or the size of the ram is irrelevant to development really doesn't understand that you simply can't spend more time and make a game look as good.
NPC's, AI, draw distance, resolution everything you can imagine takes a hit to whats available.
Let me put it this way, say I'm making a PS4/Xbone/Wii U game.Now, lets say that I have a section in the game where there are a bunch of people in a crowded area, say a mall or a busy street. Each one needs AI, rendering and so fourth. For an example, say it's a mission where you need to follow someone in a crowded area and keep eyes on him. This is easy to do cross systems because the ps4 and xbone are very similar, the framerate might chug a bit more on one than another in certain spots, dipping from 60's to 50s, but all in in all it's all good.
Then you start working on the Wii U version and you realize that there's simply too much going on for the ram to hold, considering the Wii u has half of what the others do. You then face tough decisions, do I take NPCS out? Do I change the level? Each and every area has to be scrutinized, textures of things lowered or simply the amount of things on screen lowered. Objects might be removed like newspaper stands, and fire hydrants, the distance you can see might be shortened. People might be removed and entire levels might have to be removed.
DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE? It's happened SO MANY TIMES in the past,.
LOOK at splinter cell games for ps2 and xbox and gamecube. PRIME EXAMPLE. Entire missions were changed, levels were cut. The differences in power made every game play like it's own game. Levels, content completely stripped or completely redesigned for the gamecube version due to 1/4th the usual disk base.
Sacrifices will be made in one way or another. While you may be okay with them doing this they simply might not be. Look at the sales, they spend time making the Wii U version of arkham city arguably the best console version with sweet features and it sells like piss in the wind. at 200k, that's honestly almost insulting.
LOOK at splinter cell games for ps2 and xbox and gamecube. PRIME EXAMPLE. Entire missions were changed, levels were cut. The differences in power made every game play like it's own game. Levels, content completely stripped or completely redesigned for the gamecube version due to 1/4th the usual disk base.
Sacrifices will be made in one way or another. While you may be okay with them doing this they simply might not be. Look at the sales, they spend time making the Wii U version of arkham city arguably the best console version with sweet features and it sells like piss in the wind. at 200k, that's honestly almost insulting.
The fact they got the game running on PS2 just proves they can do it provided they want to, cuts or no cuts. Resident Evil 4 is a better example here. The gamecube version has the clear advantage and trumps the PS2 version (despite the additional features) yet a PS2 version still happened. Know why? Because Capcom wanted it to happen.
Plus you all assume they use PS4 and XBO as default when they could always use Wii U as the base and upscale to the others. Which they would do but the incentive for them to isn't there. And to say selling 200, 000 units is an insult how exactly? Its just reluctance from the fanbase given how they were treated on Wii by these companies. Giving an excellent port of Arkham City doesn't prove WB were committed in the long run of things and surprise Injustice and Origins proved it. They couldn't even do a re-release of Injustice with a tiny bit of extra content and they cut online features for Origins. It is exactly the same with Vita.
PSP was treated as a port device with downscaled PS2 games and when their obvious cash grabbing failed they bailed on it. But that puts the hardest fans (the ones that rush to buy the successors) at a serious trust issue in the companies. Kissing up with ports and unique features doesn't demonstrate commitment from the company in the long run. With Vita, Capcom had thrown tuned down HD ports (both of which I believe received a backlash) and wonder why they flopped. Compare to 3DS which had got not one but two Resident Evil games (a game which ironically never materialized on PSP), a well handled port of SSFIV, MML3 (at the time) and two Monster Hunter games being built towards the capabilities of the system. Seriously, is it really an insult? These companies throw stuff at the wall and when it doesn't stick they fly off and people buy the lies they sell.
LOOK at splinter cell games for ps2 and xbox and gamecube. PRIME EXAMPLE. Entire missions were changed, levels were cut. The differences in power made every game play like it's own game. Levels, content completely stripped or completely redesigned for the gamecube version due to 1/4th the usual disk base.
Sacrifices will be made in one way or another. While you may be okay with them doing this they simply might not be. Look at the sales, they spend time making the Wii U version of arkham city arguably the best console version with sweet features and it sells like piss in the wind. at 200k, that's honestly almost insulting.
The fact they got the game running on PS2 just proves they can do it provided they want to, cuts or no cuts. Resident Evil 4 is a better example here. The gamecube version has the clear advantage and trumps the PS2 version (despite the additional features) yet a PS2 version still happened. Know why? Because Capcom wanted it to happen.
Plus you all assume they use PS4 and XBO as default when they could always use Wii U as the base and upscale to the others. Which they would do but the incentive for them to isn't there. And to say selling 200, 000 units is an insult how exactly? Its just reluctance from the fanbase given how they were treated on Wii by these companies. Giving an excellent port of Arkham City doesn't prove WB were committed in the long run of things and surprise Injustice and Origins proved it. They couldn't even do a re-release of Injustice with a tiny bit of extra content and they cut online features for Origins. It is exactly the same with Vita.
PSP was treated as a port device with downscaled PS2 games and when their obvious cash grabbing failed they bailed on it. But that puts the hardest fans (the ones that rush to buy the successors) at a serious trust issue in the companies. Kissing up with ports and unique features doesn't demonstrate commitment from the company in the long run. With Vita, Capcom had thrown tuned down HD ports (both of which I believe received a backlash) and wonder why they flopped. Compare to 3DS which had got not one but two Resident Evil games (a game which ironically never materialized on PSP), a well handled port of SSFIV, MML3 (at the time) and two Monster Hunter games being built towards the capabilities of the system. Seriously, is it really an insult? These companies throw stuff at the wall and when it doesn't stick they fly off and people buy the lies they sell.
For sake of argument the PSP just got discounted this week and was far more than a port machine.
Insert Resident Evil with a Original Assassin's Creed and a new Phantasy Star game in nova. The vita also has handheld ports of
Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3
Street Fighter X tekken
Blaz Blu Calamity Trigger
Also you mean 1 monster hunter game seeing as 3 Ultimate is port of a Wii game.
To your point about the Wii U no one was ever going to use the Wii U as the lead hardware. Hell the Metro developers were working on a Wii U port of the second game and it got cancelled while the PS4/XBO are getting both Metro games.
WAT!
Hey check out my awesome new youtube channel shingi70 where I update weekly on the latest gaming and comic news form a level headed perspective.
3DS Friend Code: 3093-7342-3454 | Nintendo Network ID: shingi70
For sake of argument the PSP just got discounted this week and was far more than a port machine.
Insert Resident Evil with a Original Assassin's Creed and a new Phantasy Star game in nova. The vita also has handheld ports of
Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3
Street Fighter X tekken
Blaz Blu Calamity Trigger
Also you mean 1 monster hunter game seeing as 3 Ultimate is port of a Wii game.
To your point about the Wii U no one was ever going to use the Wii U as the lead hardware. Hell the Metro developers were working on a Wii U port of the second game and it got cancelled while the PS4/XBO are getting both Metro games.
It had standouts like 3rd Birthday but many of these surfaced after a rough drought. And then another rough drought before Vita came out.
And Monster Hunter 3 was not a port. It was a remake.
The Wii U being a lead was just an example on what if. Metro getting on XBO/PS4 has nothing to do with power. They can do it provided they want to. They just don't see the incentive to. From that it is pretty much covering every other point I made before.
In order for Wii U owners to receive support it means getting shafted. Which is why the fanbase gives them the finger. Which is why they say "it isn't powerful enough". Like I said before, gamers have clearly grown a vendetta against MS for their BS last year. When they continue to lose market share to Sony and lose support because of it, you will see what I mean.
LOOK at splinter cell games for ps2 and xbox and gamecube. PRIME EXAMPLE. Entire missions were changed, levels were cut. The differences in power made every game play like it's own game. Levels, content completely stripped or completely redesigned for the gamecube version due to 1/4th the usual disk base.
Sacrifices will be made in one way or another. While you may be okay with them doing this they simply might not be. Look at the sales, they spend time making the Wii U version of arkham city arguably the best console version with sweet features and it sells like piss in the wind. at 200k, that's honestly almost insulting.
The fact they got the game running on PS2 just proves they can do it provided they want to, cuts or no cuts. Resident Evil 4 is a better example here. The gamecube version has the clear advantage and trumps the PS2 version (despite the additional features) yet a PS2 version still happened. Know why? Because Capcom wanted it to happen.
Plus you all assume they use PS4 and XBO as default when they could always use Wii U as the base and upscale to the others. Which they would do but the incentive for them to isn't there. And to say selling 200, 000 units is an insult how exactly? Its just reluctance from the fanbase given how they were treated on Wii by these companies. Giving an excellent port of Arkham City doesn't prove WB were committed in the long run of things and surprise Injustice and Origins proved it. They couldn't even do a re-release of Injustice with a tiny bit of extra content and they cut online features for Origins. It is exactly the same with Vita.
PSP was treated as a port device with downscaled PS2 games and when their obvious cash grabbing failed they bailed on it. But that puts the hardest fans (the ones that rush to buy the successors) at a serious trust issue in the companies. Kissing up with ports and unique features doesn't demonstrate commitment from the company in the long run. With Vita, Capcom had thrown tuned down HD ports (both of which I believe received a backlash) and wonder why they flopped. Compare to 3DS which had got not one but two Resident Evil games (a game which ironically never materialized on PSP), a well handled port of SSFIV, MML3 (at the time) and two Monster Hunter games being built towards the capabilities of the system. Seriously, is it really an insult? These companies throw stuff at the wall and when it doesn't stick they fly off and people buy the lies they sell.
So instead of running into problems and scaling down the wii u version, you wan't to develop it from the ground up on the weakest system and then just tack on higher resolution to other systems instead of taking advantage of the other systems capabilities. Essentially a screw you ps4/xb/pc users because I only play Wii U. I'd honestly rather they just co-develop a wii u version with the mindset that there will be changes to levels from the start.
So instead of running into problems and scaling down the wii u version, you wan't to develop it from the ground up on the weakest system and then just tack on higher resolution to other systems instead of taking advantage of the other systems capabilities.
I don't think that;s too much to ask for considering that describes a majority of next gen titles this year.
So instead of running into problems and scaling down the wii u version, you wan't to develop it from the ground up on the weakest system and then just tack on higher resolution to other systems instead of taking advantage of the other systems capabilities. Essentially a screw you ps4/xb/pc users because I only play Wii U. I'd honestly rather they just co-develop a wii u version with the mindset that there will be changes to levels from the start.
Its only an example and its happened on several systems in the past. According to the PS3 users 360 has been "screwing" them for years because of the superior Blu-Ray memory space. Companies couldn't care less about power, specifications or unique features. As long as they have a large base they will cater to them regardless of how much they are "screwing" people. PS3 owners have claimed that FF XIII, Lost Planet 2, L.A Noire and many others were lacking in features on their system because developers had to downgrade them for the 360. I honestly don't believe a word of that.
The problem is attach rate. Nothing more. Everything else would get thrown out the window if Wii U had the users it needed to make porting worthwhile. If it was power every company would have ported PS360 games last year.
According to the PS3 users 360 has been "screwing" them for years because of the superior Blu-Ray memory space. Companies couldn't care less about power, specifications or unique features. As long as they have a large base they will cater to them regardless of how much they are "screwing" people. PS3 owners have claimed that FF XIII, Lost Planet 2, L.A Noire and many others were lacking in features on their system because developers had to downgrade them for the 360. I honestly don't believe a word of that.
They might have a leg to stand on with that argument when PC versions of games quit having to deal with console-imposed limitations.
LOOK at splinter cell games for ps2 and xbox and gamecube. PRIME EXAMPLE. Entire missions were changed, levels were cut. The differences in power made every game play like it's own game. Levels, content completely stripped or completely redesigned for the gamecube version due to 1/4th the usual disk base.
Sacrifices will be made in one way or another. While you may be okay with them doing this they simply might not be. Look at the sales, they spend time making the Wii U version of arkham city arguably the best console version with sweet features and it sells like piss in the wind. at 200k, that's honestly almost insulting.
Plus you all assume they use PS4 and XBO as default when they could always use Wii U as the base and upscale to the others. Which they would do but the incentive for them to isn't there. And to say selling 200, 000 units is an insult how exactly? Its just reluctance from the fanbase given how they were treated on Wii by these companies. Giving an excellent port of Arkham City doesn't prove WB were committed in the long run of things and surprise Injustice and Origins proved it. They couldn't even do a re-release of Injustice with a tiny bit of extra content and they cut online features for Origins. It is exactly the same with Vita.
PSP was treated as a port device with downscaled PS2 games and when their obvious cash grabbing failed they bailed on it. But that puts the hardest fans (the ones that rush to buy the successors) at a serious trust issue in the companies. Kissing up with ports and unique features doesn't demonstrate commitment from the company in the long run. With Vita, Capcom had thrown tuned down HD ports (both of which I believe received a backlash) and wonder why they flopped. Compare to 3DS which had got not one but two Resident Evil games (a game which ironically never materialized on PSP), a well handled port of SSFIV, MML3 (at the time) and two Monster Hunter games being built towards the capabilities of the system. Seriously, is it really an insult? These companies throw stuff at the wall and when it doesn't stick they fly off and people buy the lies they sell.
Remember, the scale of development is different to PS2 or Gamecube eras. Back then, you had maybe 20 or 50 people on a project, not 200. Since the games are bigger, making changes between different versions becomes a proportionally bigger challenge. When you add in the increased complexity of the game, and it's even more time/effort to make, say, the level in the Wii U version different from the PS4 version. Plus from a business point of view, platform holders really dislike getting shafted by basically being given an inferior version of the game.
Also, the idea that you just make the game for the Wii U and then "upscale" it for PS4/X1 disregards the fact that game development just doesn't work like that. Some things are going to be different from an architecture point of view, that make it difficult or give a performance hit on one system whereas it runs fine on another. PS4/X1 are not simply Wii U's with more RAM. Ultimately, you're competing with other games, so the gain in sales by making the game super-shiny outweighs the loss of not being on a relatively small platform like Wii U.
_
As for Child of Light, can't remember where I read it, but the story was that some of the devs at Ubisoft were threatening to leave and go indie. So Ubisoft said to them to pitch the game they would otherwise make as indies internally, and if Ubisoft liked it, they would fund/publish. Thus giving the devs the creative freedom they wanted, whilst taking away the financial risk. Whilst Ubisoft wouldn't be losing staff who would be expensive to replace. The game worked out in the end, so it was win-win.
Another example is Titanfall. That game apparently had a team of just 60 people, and by focusing on just multiplayer, (and marketing hype), they kept costs down enough to justify it as a Microsoft exclusive. That kind of model is very doable for Wii U.
LOOK at splinter cell games for ps2 and xbox and gamecube. PRIME EXAMPLE. Entire missions were changed, levels were cut. The differences in power made every game play like it's own game. Levels, content completely stripped or completely redesigned for the gamecube version due to 1/4th the usual disk base.
Sacrifices will be made in one way or another. While you may be okay with them doing this they simply might not be. Look at the sales, they spend time making the Wii U version of arkham city arguably the best console version with sweet features and it sells like piss in the wind. at 200k, that's honestly almost insulting.
Plus you all assume they use PS4 and XBO as default when they could always use Wii U as the base and upscale to the others. Which they would do but the incentive for them to isn't there. And to say selling 200, 000 units is an insult how exactly? Its just reluctance from the fanbase given how they were treated on Wii by these companies. Giving an excellent port of Arkham City doesn't prove WB were committed in the long run of things and surprise Injustice and Origins proved it. They couldn't even do a re-release of Injustice with a tiny bit of extra content and they cut online features for Origins. It is exactly the same with Vita.
PSP was treated as a port device with downscaled PS2 games and when their obvious cash grabbing failed they bailed on it. But that puts the hardest fans (the ones that rush to buy the successors) at a serious trust issue in the companies. Kissing up with ports and unique features doesn't demonstrate commitment from the company in the long run. With Vita, Capcom had thrown tuned down HD ports (both of which I believe received a backlash) and wonder why they flopped. Compare to 3DS which had got not one but two Resident Evil games (a game which ironically never materialized on PSP), a well handled port of SSFIV, MML3 (at the time) and two Monster Hunter games being built towards the capabilities of the system. Seriously, is it really an insult? These companies throw stuff at the wall and when it doesn't stick they fly off and people buy the lies they sell.
Remember, the scale of development is different to PS2 or Gamecube eras. Back then, you had maybe 20 or 50 people on a project, not 200. Since the games are bigger, making changes between different versions becomes a proportionally bigger challenge. When you add in the increased complexity of the game, and it's even more time/effort to make, say, the level in the Wii U version different from the PS4 version. Plus from a business point of view, platform holders really dislike getting shafted by basically being given an inferior version of the game.
Also, the idea that you just make the game for the Wii U and then "upscale" it for PS4/X1 disregards the fact that game development just doesn't work like that. Some things are going to be different from an architecture point of view, that make it difficult or give a performance hit on one system whereas it runs fine on another. PS4/X1 are not simply Wii U's with more RAM. Ultimately, you're competing with other games, so the gain in sales by making the game super-shiny outweighs the loss of not being on a relatively small platform like Wii U.
_
As for Child of Light, can't remember where I read it, but the story was that some of the devs at Ubisoft were threatening to leave and go indie. So Ubisoft said to them to pitch the game they would otherwise make as indies internally, and if Ubisoft liked it, they would fund/publish. Thus giving the devs the creative freedom they wanted, whilst taking away the financial risk. Whilst Ubisoft wouldn't be losing staff who would be expensive to replace. The game worked out in the end, so it was win-win.
Another example is Titanfall. That game apparently had a team of just 60 people, and by focusing on just multiplayer, (and marketing hype), they kept costs down enough to justify it as a Microsoft exclusive. That kind of model is very doable for Wii U.
The games aren't bigger they just have more worthless cutscenes in them and they always make the wrong compromises ruining the end result.
The Japanese don't use massive teams either they just work harder. Compare something like Border Break or one of the best Nintendo home console titles to a glitchy Western AAA.
“30fps Is Not a Good Artistic Decision, It's a Failure”
Freedom of the press is for those who happen to own one.
So instead of running into problems and scaling down the wii u version, you wan't to develop it from the ground up on the weakest system and then just tack on higher resolution to other systems instead of taking advantage of the other systems capabilities. Essentially a screw you ps4/xb/pc users because I only play Wii U. I'd honestly rather they just co-develop a wii u version with the mindset that there will be changes to levels from the start.
Its only an example and its happened on several systems in the past. According to the PS3 users 360 has been "screwing" them for years because of the superior Blu-Ray memory space. Companies couldn't care less about power, specifications or unique features. As long as they have a large base they will cater to them regardless of how much they are "screwing" people. PS3 owners have claimed that FF XIII, Lost Planet 2, L.A Noire and many others were lacking in features on their system because developers had to downgrade them for the 360. I honestly don't believe a word of that.
The problem is attach rate. Nothing more. Everything else would get thrown out the window if Wii U had the users it needed to make porting worthwhile. If it was power every company would have ported PS360 games last year.
They took out content for the international version of ff13 because they wanted the same content on both ps3/360? (Japan didn't have a 360 release so it got all the content the other ps3 releases should have included) It's really hard to think of a reason other than storage issues or the shock factor of having to put yet another disk in.
If you look at the data for arkham orogins and city, they each sold around .200k copies on wii u. Compare that to the nearly 5 million copies the ps3 version sold and the picture gets really clear.
Only City sold that much for PS3, Origins did 1 million something, not a success by any margin. I think it's pretty amazing that more than 200,000 people bought City: AE. Obviously it was people like me who waited for the superior GamePad version, FOR MORE THAN A YEAR (for a console that hasn't been launched yet compared to an 80 million user base console), and I'm glad I did. You can't really do better.
Forums
Topic: I don't understand the thinking of Western Devs
Posts 41 to 60 of 77
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.