• 150 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

damn XD

more quotes

Nintendo are still operating like it's 1990. They should have "done a Sega" and offered Mario/Zelda as PS4/Durango exclusives

It is an utterly intentional decision to focus our resources on markets which actually matter ... like mobile, and Gen4.

Yep, we've got plenty of problems, but WiiU isn't where that family/casual market is. It's on mobile/tablet now!

Looks like we have our next twitter Victim. He must be really drunk or so XD

#2 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

The WiiU isn't exactly a powerhouse, but to call it weaker than the 360 seems to be stretching it a bit too far.

#3 Posted by casper_ (903 posts) -

This dude gonna get soo fired...

#4 Edited by Dallas_Raines (2161 posts) -
#5 Edited by Dallas_Raines (2161 posts) -

Huh, now this guy is slinging 'facts' about the PC market and the lameness of Origin. Maybe he already got fired.

#6 Posted by JJOR64 (18995 posts) -

Blah blah blah blah.

#7 Posted by ProfessorEss (7378 posts) -

@ahaisthisourchance said:

The WiiU isn't exactly a powerhouse, but to call it weaker than the 360 seems to be stretching it a bit too far.

Have there been any games released (or even teased) that prove (or even hint that) this opinion/theory wrong?

Online
#8 Edited by RazielCuts (2955 posts) -

Did this guy not learn from the Xbox 'always on' tweet debacle? But then again I guess it isn't really a 'secret' EA isn't supporting the Wii U but yeah, cold.

#9 Edited by oldenglishC (957 posts) -

oldenglishC: EA Sports is crap, 2K's games have always been better.

I like my headline more.

#10 Edited by Oscar__Explosion (2305 posts) -

Why does it matter how powerful the system itself is? You don't need top of the line graphical capabilities in order to make fantastic games.

#11 Edited by Dallas_Raines (2161 posts) -

@oscar__explosion: EA's in the multiplatform game, not the specially crafted exclusive game.

#12 Posted by Nictel (2412 posts) -

Bob Summerwill, former employee of EA.

#13 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2305 posts) -

@oscar__explosion: EA's in the multiplatform game, not the specially crafted exclusive game.

Yeah I understand and that is the reason EA is saying Wii U is crap because they can't do ports on it. At least that's what it sounds like to me.

#14 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Man, EA must fucking hate the Wii U at this point.

#15 Edited by Tom_Scherschel (122 posts) -

@oscar__explosion: He's saying the system is crap because it is about on spec (or marginally more powerful, depending on who you believe) with hardware from eight years ago. As a result of that, yes, it makes it harder to port games if they have been designed first for next-gen systems. But the difficulty of porting games is not his primary complaint, it's the low-powered hardware.

#16 Posted by Hailinel (24843 posts) -

@oscar__explosion: And who honestly expected Mass Effect 3 to sell on Wii U, anyway?

#17 Edited by Oscar__Explosion (2305 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@oscar__explosion: And who honestly expected Mass Effect 3 to sell on Wii U, anyway?

I totally forgot that port existed.

#18 Edited by FunkasaurasRex (847 posts) -

My guess is that the Wii U isn't so much weaker than the 360 as it is poorly optimized for ports or existing engines. But what the fuck do I know.

Also I think it's hilarious that PS4/Durango is being referred to as Gen4. Consoles didn't exist before PSone/N64 you guys.

#19 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

My guess is that the Wii U isn't so much weaker than the 360 as it is poorly optimized for ports or existing engines. But what the fuck do I know.

Also I think its hilarious that we're apparently referring to PS4/Durango as Gen4. Consoles didn't exist before PSone you guys.

This is EA stating that these generation started with the 3D era. It makes sense on a technical level.

#20 Posted by PillClinton (3291 posts) -

God, the Wii U's so fucking stupid. I've been saying that since they first revealed the damn name, and distinctly remember wholeheartedly agreeing with Brad's punny analysis of "Pii U" after that press conference. Yes, it stinks. It always has, and always will.

#21 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

Maybe it's "viral" marketing.

#22 Posted by TheHBK (5486 posts) -

I think the tablet play is cool. But they hinged the whole damn console on that. Because that has to make up for the crappy hardware and it doesn't. We all remember the Dreamcast fondly but would not remember as such if the VMU had been the new feature and not awesome ass games and graphics.

What nintendo should have done was put out the Super Wii or Wii Tuu, nutted up and put out hardware that could compete with PC games and the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony. We all saw people got tired of the motion gimmick, any gimmick. Go back to just making it easy to get games on there and have them be up to par.

#23 Edited by I_smell (3924 posts) -

Alright this guy is definately getting called into an office tomorrow for a chat.

#24 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@thehbk said:

I think the tablet play is cool. But they hinged the whole damn console on that. Because that has to make up for the crappy hardware and it doesn't. We all remember the Dreamcast fondly but would not remember as such if the VMU had been the new feature and not awesome ass games and graphics.

What nintendo should have done was put out the Super Wii or Wii Tuu, nutted up and put out hardware that could compete with PC games and the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony. We all saw people got tired of the motion gimmick, any gimmick. Go back to just making it easy to get games on there and have them be up to par.

They basically made a DS/3DS for the console market. Nothing really else is this gamepad thing.

edit: Goddamnit Neogaf xd

#25 Posted by Demoskinos (14840 posts) -

Well I guess someone doesn't care about his job? Still, this may actively reflect EA's internal opinon of the WiiU (albeit not publicly)

Online
#26 Edited by joshth (505 posts) -

woo boy. This guy sure is professional...

#27 Edited by gaminghooligan (1447 posts) -

Can you say fired? I can! This guy is a fool, what does he hope to accomplish with this? I would say most people that care have figured out the Wii U isn't some powerhouse machine. I still want to see if it sells well this holiday season against the new consoles as the cheaper alternative, but let's face it Mario and Zelda will carry that machine. He was right about that.

#28 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

He deleted his tweets. Now we only can watch how EA will react to it.

#29 Posted by EXTomar (4741 posts) -

It is cliche but "power" isn't so important but what devs do with what is available. If Nintendo is just going "Here you guys go" without further shepherding then it is DOA.

#30 Posted by zoozilla (979 posts) -

Between Frostbite games not appearing on the Wii U to FIFA being cancelled for it, third-party support is basically dead at this point.

Online
#31 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@extomar said:

It is cliche but "power" isn't so important but what devs do with what is available. If Nintendo is just going "Here you guys go" without further shepherding then it is DOA.

Power was always important. There were always graphic and power wars even in the times of Atari and co. More power also means new mechanics, new ways of playing, new possibilities.

#32 Posted by Hailinel (24843 posts) -

@darji: So what was the Wii, then?

#33 Edited by Oscar__Explosion (2305 posts) -

@darji said:

@extomar said:

It is cliche but "power" isn't so important but what devs do with what is available. If Nintendo is just going "Here you guys go" without further shepherding then it is DOA.

Power was always important. There were always graphic and power wars even in the times of Atari and co. More power also means new mechanics, new ways of playing, new possibilities.

Why wasn't EA making these complaints about the Wii then?

#34 Posted by FunkasaurasRex (847 posts) -

@darji: I guess that makes sense. I still think it's funny in a "everything beforehand was irrelevant" kinda way.

#35 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@darji: So what was the Wii, then?

the Wii is kind of a gap. Personally I would put the Wii and Wii U into the Ps3/360 era. The Wii U is Nintendo's first HD console and it shows. They underestimated the development of Wii U games and no lack a lot behind. They need to learn everything from new and that is one of the biggest problems Nintendo is facing right now.

#36 Edited by EXTomar (4741 posts) -

To put it another way: I don't think "power" is the problem with the Wii U as much as Nintendo isn't doing enough to help developers get software out the door. Nintendo isn't be responsive enough to ISV where they could have a great idea for a game but struggle to get it out anyway. Hardware is important but it doesn't magically make a platform viable. All we need to do is glance back in history to see that folly where it didn't matter if something was over or under powered but vendor didn't or couldn't satisfy ISV requirements.

If you need a direct hint: There are plenty of games designs and ideas that don't require a bleeding edge PC or even at 360 to execute. Why aren't those games appearing on the Wii U?

#37 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@darji said:

@extomar said:

It is cliche but "power" isn't so important but what devs do with what is available. If Nintendo is just going "Here you guys go" without further shepherding then it is DOA.

Power was always important. There were always graphic and power wars even in the times of Atari and co. More power also means new mechanics, new ways of playing, new possibilities.

Why wasn't EA making these complaints about the Wii then?

They did. And what was the Wii EA support about? Yeah they still got their madden and Fifa but beside that? Also remember the legendary "2 duct tapes together" quote? That back than came also from one EA employee.

#38 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2305 posts) -

@darji said:

@oscar__explosion said:

@darji said:

@extomar said:

It is cliche but "power" isn't so important but what devs do with what is available. If Nintendo is just going "Here you guys go" without further shepherding then it is DOA.

Power was always important. There were always graphic and power wars even in the times of Atari and co. More power also means new mechanics, new ways of playing, new possibilities.

Why wasn't EA making these complaints about the Wii then?

They did. And what was the Wii EA support about? Yeah they still got their madden and Fifa but beside that? Also remember the legendary "2 duct tapes together" quote? That back than came also from one EA employee.

and even with that the Wii did fine.

#39 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

The problem with Nintendo and EA is EXTREMELY simple.

EA is a publisher. A publisher invests in game projects with the hope of making a return. To diversify, they invest in different types of games. To an investor, the one thing they dislike more than anything is RISK. To mitigate risk, they lean hard on proven genres and sequels to already proven projects.

Nintendo, for the past decade, has been obsessed with "new". New ways to play games, new ways to experience gaming. "New" to investing publishers is a huge warning flag for "risk". Would you, as an investor, want someone to take your money and invest in a bunch of "new" and unproven stocks? Of course not. But the people who DO are the people who makes bucketloads of cash, like Nintendo did with the Wii.

EA made a cursory attempt to follow along with the Wii U and the Wii, but that was by trying to mitigate their risk as much as possible with lame ports that didn't even understand the concept to begin with.

Nintendo and EA are never going to see eye to eye as long as EA is completely risk averse, and as long as Nintendo keeps trying to innovate where a ton of people see no need for innovation.

#40 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@darji said:

@oscar__explosion said:

@darji said:

@extomar said:

It is cliche but "power" isn't so important but what devs do with what is available. If Nintendo is just going "Here you guys go" without further shepherding then it is DOA.

Power was always important. There were always graphic and power wars even in the times of Atari and co. More power also means new mechanics, new ways of playing, new possibilities.

Why wasn't EA making these complaints about the Wii then?

They did. And what was the Wii EA support about? Yeah they still got their madden and Fifa but beside that? Also remember the legendary "2 duct tapes together" quote? That back than came also from one EA employee.

and even with that the Wii did fine.

Yeah because it had appeal. It had a system seller called Wii Sports and motion control which was easy to get for people who never played a video game before. The Wii U has nothing of this and this could be very well end up as Nintendo's biggest failure to date. Mabye even Nintendo's downfall.

#41 Edited by Beyond_the_infinite (102 posts) -

@oscar__explosion said:

Why does it matter how powerful the system itself is? You don't need top of the line graphical capabilities in order to make fantastic games.

And what fantastic Wii U games can you point at?

#42 Posted by Humanity (9276 posts) -

Why does it matter how powerful the system itself is? You don't need top of the line graphical capabilities in order to make fantastic games.

This has consistently proven to not be the case in the modern game market.

You constantly see people talk about wanting to play the "superior" PC version because it will look better. People want nice things. People don't want to buy an entirely new console to get the same looking games as their 7 year old consoles are already capable of delivering.

We all want eye candy.

#43 Posted by JazGalaxy (1576 posts) -

@darji said:

@extomar said:

It is cliche but "power" isn't so important but what devs do with what is available. If Nintendo is just going "Here you guys go" without further shepherding then it is DOA.

Power was always important. There were always graphic and power wars even in the times of Atari and co. More power also means new mechanics, new ways of playing, new possibilities.

Engh. "power" is incredible subjective.

Look at the N64 vs. PSX war. The PSX was a vastly inferior machine, but it had a few tricks up it's sleeve to spoof graphics that were better than what the console was actually capable of putting out Games like FFVII and Resident Evil were technically inferior to N64 games, but they were far more clever.

#44 Edited by CrossTheAtlantic (1145 posts) -

Wow. Hope he doesn't mind not providing for that kid for awhile.

#45 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2305 posts) -

@humanity said:

@oscar__explosion said:

Why does it matter how powerful the system itself is? You don't need top of the line graphical capabilities in order to make fantastic games.

This has consistently proven to not be the case in the modern game market.

You constantly see people talk about wanting to play the "superior" PC version because it will look better. People want nice things. People don't want to buy an entirely new console to get the same looking games as their 7 year old consoles are already capable of delivering.

We all want eye candy.

I guess I'm just out of tune with the general consensus. I'm not much for caring about graphical fidelity more that just straight up performance. Not saying that high end graphics aren't nice it's just not the first thing I care about.

#46 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@darji said:

@extomar said:

It is cliche but "power" isn't so important but what devs do with what is available. If Nintendo is just going "Here you guys go" without further shepherding then it is DOA.

Power was always important. There were always graphic and power wars even in the times of Atari and co. More power also means new mechanics, new ways of playing, new possibilities.

Engh. "power" is incredible subjective.

Look at the N64 vs. PSX war. The PSX was a vastly inferior machine, but it had a few tricks up it's sleeve to spoof graphics that were better than what the console was actually capable of putting out Games like FFVII and Resident Evil were technically inferior to N64 games, but they were far more clever.

If you are almost on the same level it does not really matter. If you are years behind the current tech it does matter. The Wii got away with it because it had appeal and a systemseller. The Wii U has nothing like that. And No it will be not the new Mario or Zelda game. Wii Sports carried the whole system alone. Wii Sport made the Wii to the fad it was.

#47 Edited by EXTomar (4741 posts) -

Here is a fun thought experiment: Why are there not more games like Minecraft or Tiny Towers or any number of other small scale on the Wii U today? It certainly isn't about the power of the Wii U platform that is stopping them. For games with sub $100k budget the Wii U platform might be unattractive not because of the "power" of the Wii U platform but because the way Nintendo manages the system and services.

#48 Edited by CrossTheAtlantic (1145 posts) -

Also, feel bad for the guy who tweeted the article (Scott Hanselman). Apparently the angry internet is incapable of tweeting and thinks he was the guy saying it, so his twitter is getting blown up.

#49 Edited by Oscar__Explosion (2305 posts) -

@darji said:

@oscar__explosion said:

@darji said:

@oscar__explosion said:

@darji said:

@extomar said:

It is cliche but "power" isn't so important but what devs do with what is available. If Nintendo is just going "Here you guys go" without further shepherding then it is DOA.

Power was always important. There were always graphic and power wars even in the times of Atari and co. More power also means new mechanics, new ways of playing, new possibilities.

Why wasn't EA making these complaints about the Wii then?

They did. And what was the Wii EA support about? Yeah they still got their madden and Fifa but beside that? Also remember the legendary "2 duct tapes together" quote? That back than came also from one EA employee.

and even with that the Wii did fine.

Yeah because it had appeal. It had a system seller called Wii Sports and motion control which was easy to get for people who never played a video game before. The Wii U has nothing of this and this could be very well end up as Nintendo's biggest failure to date. Mabye even Nintendo's downfall.

I don't know about all that downfall stuff but I do agree that Nintendo failed to provide a Wii Sports equivalent to help people understand what this system actually is. I think brand confusion might be more in play that this however. I can recall the handful of times I was at a Target or Best Buy and explained to parents what the difference between a Wii and Wii U is or that Wiimotes work with the Wii U (that packaging doesn't help at all) I believe this is one of the more major things Nintendo needs to fix.

#50 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@extomar said:

Here is a fun thought experiment: Why are there not more games like Minecraft or Tiny Towers or any number of other small scale games months ago? It certainly isn't about the power of the Wii U platform that is stopping them. For games with sub $100k budget the Wii U platform might be unattractive not because of the "power" of the Wii U platform but because the way Nintendo manages the system and services.

It is unattractive because there is no user base. No market nothing. and yeah it also hurts that Nintendo's E-shop is so bad. Why would I buy digital games on a console which account is console bound. That is why Nintendo should go out of the hardware business. Just create the stuff you are good at. Hardware is it not.