Topic: Wii U Has 8 GB of Internal Storage

[Ymeegod]

You really haven't been keeping up with indie games have you?  There's quite a few now using UE3 and just about all of them eat memory like it's candy.

With only 7GBs usable, you'll only going fit an handful of games and nintendo's releasing all it's stuff digital and there's going be DLC on top of that.  For example, MW3 map packs eat something like 2-3 GB's alone. 
Better off planning an purchasing and external HD. 

[tendoboy1984]

A large majority of games on iOS, Android, Xbox Live Arcade, etc. are under 1 GB. If indie developers are ok with making small games, then why can't bigger publishers be satisfied with making small games?


Spending millions of dollars to make a grandiose movie-style epic, and not selling enough copies to recoup those costs, is what's bankrupting so many studios this gen.


You don't have this problem in the movie industry because all the major film companies (WB, Fox, Universal, Sony Pictures, Disney) are huge global conglomerates. And they can afford those huge budgets.


In the video game industry, only a select few companies have that advantage (EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Nintendo).

[NWR_insanolord]

iOS games are small because they don't have the option of being big when they can't get away with charging more than 99 cents. Similarly, you can't make a massive epic for $15 a pop on XBLA.

As has been pointed out numerous times, artificially restricting developers for no reason is probably the stupidest thing Nintendo could do if they're trying to improve third party relations.

[broodwars]

Not to mention we DO have "smaller" games in the downloadable titles, which are usually somewhere between 300 MB - 1.5 GB in size.  When you work in HD, you have big file sizes.  That's just how HD models and textures are.

[tendoboy1984]

As has been pointed out numerous times, artificially restricting developers for no reason is probably the stupidest thing Nintendo could do if they're trying to improve third party relations.

It worked for Apple and Google.

[NWR_insanolord]

As has been pointed out numerous times, artificially restricting developers for no reason is probably the stupidest thing Nintendo could do if they're trying to improve third party relations.

It worked for Apple and Google.

If you can't understand that Nintendo faces a different situation than the freaking smartphone platforms then you're beyond hopeless.

[tendoboy1984]

As has been pointed out numerous times, artificially restricting developers for no reason is probably the stupidest thing Nintendo could do if they're trying to improve third party relations.

It worked for Apple and Google.

If you can't understand that Nintendo faces a different situation than the freaking smartphone platforms then you're beyond hopeless.

3rd party support is 3rd party support. If Apple and Google could convince 3rd-party developers to support their platforms, with the limited storage and all, then why can't Nintendo? Look how much support Xbox Live Arcade has, and many of those games are comparable to iOS and Android games.



I get what you're saying. There shouldn't be a size limit for developers. But that still hasn't stopped them from making games for Xbox Live Arcade, iOS, Android, etc. All game systems are limited by the size of their physical media, and no one really complains about that.

[NWR_insanolord]

As far as I know there isn't a mandated size limit on the iOS App Store, and I don't think there's currently one on XBLA, although there used to be. Current systems aren't necessarily limited by the capacity of their physical media, as games can be expanded to multiple discs. It's the restriction that's the problem; telling developers they can't do something with no good reason to back it up is not the way to win third party support.

[tendoboy1984]

As far as I know there isn't a mandated size limit on the iOS App Store, and I don't think there's currently one on XBLA, although there used to be. Current systems aren't necessarily limited by the capacity of their physical media, as games can be expanded to multiple discs. It's the restriction that's the problem; telling developers they can't do something with no good reason to back it up is not the way to win third party support.

I thought XBLA always had a 1 GB size limit? I remember the original limit was 50 MB, but Microsoft expanded that a few years ago.

[NWR_insanolord]

There are games well over 2 GB now. I think they lifted the cap; if not, it's a lot higher than 1 GB at this point.

[Ian Sane]

It doesn't matter what Google or Apple have done.  Nintendo has done the "we'll tell you how to do this or that" routine with third parties before and it got them NOWHERE.  "You will use cartridges.  You will not make online games.  You will use glorified last gen hardware with motion control."  And third parties just said "screw you, we'll make our games on the other systems that don't tell us how to make OUR games."  This isn't some hypothetical speculation, it's real life history.  They did exactly this before and we've seen the results.

[broodwars]

As far as I know there isn't a mandated size limit on the iOS App Store, and I don't think there's currently one on XBLA, although there used to be. Current systems aren't necessarily limited by the capacity of their physical media, as games can be expanded to multiple discs. It's the restriction that's the problem; telling developers they can't do something with no good reason to back it up is not the way to win third party support.

I thought XBLA always had a 1 GB size limit? I remember the original limit was 50 MB, but Microsoft expanded that a few years ago.

I don't know what the new file size limit is, but it has to be considerably larger than 1 GB at this point.  Just looking at my PSN titles that have XBLA counterparts...

Quantum Conundrum - 1651 MB
Crysis 1 - 3026 MB
Trine 2 - 1144 MB
The Walking Dead - 1283 MB
I Am Alive - 1954 MB
Hydrophobia Prophecy - 1816 MB

Now, maybe you could argue that these games might not quite be the same size on 360 due to compression or whatnot, but I doubt the 360 versions are that far off.  Considering Crysis 1 is around 3 GB and Microsoft has full versions of 360 games on the service like Alan Wake, I'd say if the XBLA file size still exists at all, it's extremely high now.

[NWR_insanolord]

It doesn't matter what Google or Apple have done.  Nintendo has done the "we'll tell you how to do this or that" routine with third parties before and it got them NOWHERE.  "You will use cartridges.  You will not make online games.  You will use glorified last gen hardware with motion control."  And third parties just said "screw you, we'll make our games on the other systems that don't tell us how to make OUR games."  This isn't some hypothetical speculation, it's real life history.  They did exactly this before and we've seen the results.

Ian's right here. Nintendo's burned a lot of bridges with third parties over the years, so they need to be extra careful not to upset them now. I doubt many developers were still pissed about the Pippin enough to feel the same about Apple.

[nickmitch]

As far as I know there isn't a mandated size limit on the iOS App Store

It's 2GB, 500 MB for over the air downloads.

[Chozo Ghost]

If indie developers are ok with making small games, then why can't bigger publishers be satisfied with making small games?

Because consumers won't spend $60 on a game that isn't huge.

I can guess by your avatar that you are content with simple old school games that can fit on a 3.5 inch floppy, but most consumers demand more these days.

[UncleBob]

It doesn't matter what Google or Apple have done.  Nintendo has done the "we'll tell you how to do this or that" routine with third parties before and it got them NOWHERE.  "You will use cartridges.  You will not make online games.  You will use glorified last gen hardware with motion control."  And third parties just said "screw you, we'll make our games on the other systems that don't tell us how to make OUR games."  This isn't some hypothetical speculation, it's real life history.  They did exactly this before and we've seen the results.

Hey, where were you when there were folks on here arguing that Nintendo was better off in the olden days when they demanded so much from third party developers?

Also, I don't recall Nintendo telling third parties that they couldn't develop online games.  I even recall having a modem and broadband adapter in my GameCube...  You can argue that Nintendo didn't go out of their way to make supporting it worthwhile... but to say they wouldn't allow it?  Phantasy Star would like to have a word with you.

[Ceric]

That is true.  Nintendo's online stance on the Gamecube was that developers where allowed to do whatever they wanted on there own when it came to online.  Sega even tried to cash in on that by making an API to all for simple porting between all he consoles.

[Ian Sane]

Nintendo's online stance on the Gamecube was "well you CAN do it if you want but we won't support you on this in any way whatsoever and will dedicate effort to specifically downplay the value of online gaming to our userbase thus poisoning the market for any online games you would make and driving the audience for such games to other systems."  They might as well said "no".

[Chozo Ghost]

I wouldn't say Nintendo didn't support online whatsoever, because they did make the broadband adapter and modem available. I agree they could have and should have done a lot more, but making the hardware available was a very significant move in itself.

[nickmitch]

It was literally the least they could've done. Allowing a 3rd party to make the adapter would've been zero support.

[Ceric]

It was literally the least they could've done. Allowing a 3rd party to make the adapter would've been zero support.

Allowing 3rd parties to make the adapter would have been the least.  Nintendo not having any expansion ports at all would have been absolute Zero.

[nickmitch]

I'd actually consider that negative support since it puts a giant roadblock in the way of online all together.

[tendoboy1984]

If indie developers are ok with making small games, then why can't bigger publishers be satisfied with making small games?

Because consumers won't spend $60 on a game that isn't huge.

I can guess by your avatar that you are content with simple old school games that can fit on a 3.5 inch floppy, but most consumers demand more these days.

They obviously wouldn't charge $60 for those games. Duh. Small games can thrive well on iOS, Android, XBLA, PSN, etc. So there is obviously a huge market for them. No one will pay $60 for a small game, that's why we have digital distribution. And there are plenty of disc-based games that cost $20 or less.


I have no idea where you came up with that "$60" nonsense, because I wasn't alluding to that at all. 

[nickmitch]

Big developers want to sell games at $60 and not 99cents I think was his point.

[tendoboy1984]

Big developers want to sell games at $60 and not 99cents I think was his point.

Well not all games warrant that $60 price tag. There are plenty of disc-based games that are sold for less. There isn't a rule that says disc-based games have to be $60. It all depends on the size and budget of the game.