Is it working? Zombi U wasn't profitable. Rayman bombed. Splinter Cell sold a pitiful amount on the Wii U. I'm surprised if we see much from them in 2014.
I am sad that ZombiU wasn't profitable. Hopefully it being up on the eShop will help it to turn profitable eventually rather than having all those sales wind up going to used purchases.
Rayman sold best on WiiU by a wide margin. The fact that it didn't meet expectations despite selling more than Origins did is a separate problem.
Splinter Cell, well, no excuses. Just sadness, because they're actually trying to make use of the gamepad and it just isn't hitting the way they want.
All of the games you listed did terribly overall, not just on Wii U (Wii U version of Rayman actually was the best performer too). Except ZombiU which actually has reasonable numbers for a niche launch title but had ridiculous development costs they couldn't make up with the level of sales they got.
In all honesty I would not expect under advertised ports with few differentiating features to sell particularly well when you can buy basically the same thing on consoles people already own. If they turned them into "must-have" versions then they would sell units not only to current buyers but would encourage new people to pick up the Wii U and play that version. That's not what's happening however and I don't expect it to any time soon (if ever). And there's little incentive for companies to do so, it's not like Nintendo is money-hatting exclusivity in any way, and the advertising and development budget is being spent on the consoles with the largest user base.
The closest thing to "must have" versions were late ports with no DLC that were under-advertised (not really at all) and sold at full price.
Nintendo will never be able to court third party developers as long as their systems are significantly weaker than the competition. The strategy they've been pursuing since the Wii has been to differentiate themselves from the competition, which is the exact opposite of what third parties want (i.e. to release their games on everything) and we've seen the results. Maybe Nintendo can stay profitable as a walled garden living primarily off of first party titles, but it's unclear what they're really getting out of being in the hardware business at that point.
A major issue with third-parties and the Wii (not the only one, but a major issue) was the control scheme. The Wii was underbuttoned compared to any other system, and third parties couldn't count on people having the Classic Controller Pro even when it was out. So any port would likely have to incorporate the motion control for some feature.
That issue is resolved with the Wii U, as the gamepad has the exact same button scheme as any other system's controller, and every one with a Wii U has it. So any game that a third party doesn't want to make Gamepad features for can get away with that.
Nintendo will never be able to court third party developers as long as their systems are significantly weaker than the competition. The strategy they've been pursuing since the Wii has been to differentiate themselves from the competition, which is the exact opposite of what third parties want (i.e. to release their games on everything) and we've seen the results. Maybe Nintendo can stay profitable as a walled garden living primarily off of first party titles, but it's unclear what they're really getting out of being in the hardware business at that point.
GameCube says hi.
There's a reason Nintendo went to the Wii strategy. It wasn't something random.
Nintendo will never be able to court third party developers as long as their systems are significantly weaker than the competition. The strategy they've been pursuing since the Wii has been to differentiate themselves from the competition, which is the exact opposite of what third parties want (i.e. to release their games on everything) and we've seen the results. Maybe Nintendo can stay profitable as a walled garden living primarily off of first party titles, but it's unclear what they're really getting out of being in the hardware business at that point.
GameCube says hi.
There's a reason Nintendo went to the Wii strategy. It wasn't something random.
I'm not saying going back to that is necessarily the right course of action. But the Gamecube had a lot of third party support, certainly far more cross-platform releases than they get now. The PS2 just happened to be a behemoth that locked up all the exclusives - these days though exclusives are becoming pretty rare. The Wii was a huge success for them because of the casual market boom that it caused, but that turned out to be lightning in a bottle and they weren't able to figure out a way to recreate it. Now they're in this odd middle ground of playing catch-up with core gamers while also trying to hold on to their Wii audience, all while attempting to champion the next big tech fad, and not really being very successful at any of those things.
Nintendo will never be able to court third party developers as long as their systems are significantly weaker than the competition. The strategy they've been pursuing since the Wii has been to differentiate themselves from the competition, which is the exact opposite of what third parties want (i.e. to release their games on everything) and we've seen the results. Maybe Nintendo can stay profitable as a walled garden living primarily off of first party titles, but it's unclear what they're really getting out of being in the hardware business at that point.
GameCube says hi.
There's a reason Nintendo went to the Wii strategy. It wasn't something random.
I'm not saying going back to that is necessarily the right course of action. But the Gamecube had a lot of third party support, certainly far more cross-platform releases than they get now. The PS2 just happened to be a behemoth that locked up all the exclusives - these days though exclusives are becoming pretty rare. The Wii was a huge success for them because of the casual market boom that it caused, but that turned out to be lightning in a bottle and they weren't able to figure out a way to recreate it. Now they're in this odd middle ground of playing catch-up with core gamers while also trying to hold on to their Wii audience, all while attempting to champion the next big tech fad, and not really being very successful at any of those things.
Gamecube had pretty bad third party support too. Remember when "coming out for all major consoles" actually meant "coming out for everything but Gamecube"? Back then I was one of those Nintendo-only types and that particular phrase really stung. So it was bad but Nintendo let the wound fester and get a whole lot worse.
Honestly? For me, if any given game were to release a port on the Wii U, with either off TV support, or the map or inventory on the game pad, I would totally buy that version just for that particular bit of convenience. That's all they need to do when they don't want to use touch or gyroscope tech.
What baffles me is when they do that, but then also announce that it won't have multiplayer. Or DLC. Or online. Or some other arbitrary subtraction that keeps it from being the definitive version.
+2
Options
Ov3rchargeR.I.P. Mass EffectYou were dead to me for yearsRegistered Userregular
People always say "Nintendo tried keeping up with the hardware race, and look how that worked out for the Gamecube." But the console market was pretty different then. Budgets were lower, and the PS2 outsold the competition by an embarassing margin. As a dev/pub, the PS2 was really all you needed. If your game couldn't turn a profit there, GCN/XBX wasn't gonna help too much.
I'm not really sure how those two ideas are really related though. More hardware power wouldn't help companies not have ridiculous game development and even more ridiculous advertising budgets. That's just a choice those companies have decided to go with for some reason even though it tends to mean that every release is a huge risk.
I guess what I mean to say is, in the PS2 days, the question devs/pubs had for Nintendo was "Why should we develop on your platform?" As there was plenty of profit on PS2 alone. And they didn't have a good answer for that. (Smaller user base, fewer buttons, less space per disc)
In the PS360 days, with pubs wanting to release on as many platforms as possible, the question is more like "Why shouldn't we develop on your platform?" And unfortunately, Nintendo had a lot of answers for that (weaker hardware, "weird" controller, poor attach ratio).
Thankfully, the "Weird controller" thing whould no longer be an issue, since the game pad has literally all the same buttons as a PS360ETC controller. It was a major issue for the Wii, but not for the Wii U.
The smaller install base is an unfortunate truth, though. The Wii U desperately needs more games that will sell it.
If third party developers ignored Nintendo when their hardware was outselling the competition combined like 3 to 1, what chance do they have now of getting their support?
Unfortunately it's no longer the lack of buttons or waggle control that seems to be keeping games from Wii U, it's the fact that apparently devs have no idea what to do with the gamepad screen.
If you're making a game that's being ported to several consoles, and have no idea what you'd o with the screen on a Wii U version, then just put a map, or some of the GUI on it, like lifebars or somehing. Hell, if you were to just put a static wallpaper image of the game's logo on it, that still wouldn't be worse than any other version.
There are games hat lend themselves to creative use of the game pad, and devs using it interestingly will be a pivotal thing for the console. If they can use it as well as the DS and 3DS have used their secondary touch screens, that will help it.
But the game pad itself shouldn't be a barrier to ports of other games. It has the same buttons, and the screen can be relegated to a map if you've nothing else to do with it.
I just realised that out of the five Wii U games I own, four of them are Ubisoft titles.
I think Ubisoft really likes the Wii U guys.
Funny enough, for me Ubisoft is actually out Nintendoing Nintendo this year on the wiiu. They already released a funner 2d mascot platformer and AC4 sounds like the sequel to Wind Waker that I always wanted. All they need now is a RTS style splinter cell where you fling little sam fishers at terrorists that drop fruit.
I just realised that out of the five Wii U games I own, four of them are Ubisoft titles.
I think Ubisoft really likes the Wii U guys.
Funny enough, for me Ubisoft is actually out Nintendoing Nintendo this year on the wiiu. They already released a funner 2d mascot platformer and AC4 sounds like the sequel to Wind Waker that I always wanted. All they need now is a RTS style splinter cell where you fling little sam fishers at terrorists that drop fruit.
Ok, that's a bit of a stetch.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I don't know, I haven't played it yet. But the fact that I don't have to go back to a temple that wasn't fun the first time to finish every level already makes it better than the sequel to wind waked that I actually got.
I don't know, I haven't played it yet. But the fact that I don't have to go back to a temple that wasn't fun the first time to finish every level already makes it better than the sequel to wind waked that I actually got.
But other than the fact that both games feature sailing... they're nothing alike.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I don't know, I haven't played it yet. But the fact that I don't have to go back to a temple that wasn't fun the first time to finish every level already makes it better than the sequel to wind waked that I actually got.
But other than the fact that both games feature sailing... they're nothing alike.
Assassin's Creed and The Legend of Zelda can be shockingly similar at times.
I don't know, I haven't played it yet. But the fact that I don't have to go back to a temple that wasn't fun the first time to finish every level already makes it better than the sequel to wind waked that I actually got.
But other than the fact that both games feature sailing... they're nothing alike.
Assassin's Creed and The Legend of Zelda can be shockingly similar at times.
For one thing, each series has roughly the same number of games.
I don't know, I haven't played it yet. But the fact that I don't have to go back to a temple that wasn't fun the first time to finish every level already makes it better than the sequel to wind waked that I actually got.
But other than the fact that both games feature sailing... they're nothing alike.
Assassin's Creed and The Legend of Zelda can be shockingly similar at times.
So... like every LoZ game is really just someone reliving their ancestors lives? Holy shit...
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
It's not as simple as saying the Wii sold the most so if third party companies wanted the largest audience they should have released games for the Wii.
Those companies knew who their audience was, and their audience had a PS3 or a 360.
It's not as simple as saying the Wii sold the most so if third party companies wanted the largest audience they should have released games for the Wii.
Those companies knew who their audience was, and their audience had a PS3 or a 360.
It might have been easier for them to port to the Wii if the controller for the Wii had more buttons, r if the Classic Controller Pro had been made earlier in the console's lifetime. Figuring out how to put motion controls into an existing game so as to compensate for missing buttons probably would have taken more manpower an money than could be justified, for example. But if they could have just ported over with the same control scheme, it might have been more feasible to risk a Wii port.
It's not as simple as saying the Wii sold the most so if third party companies wanted the largest audience they should have released games for the Wii.
Those companies knew who their audience was, and their audience had a PS3 or a 360.
Not at the time, no. In addition gamers go to where the games are when push comes to shove.
It's not as simple as saying the Wii sold the most so if third party companies wanted the largest audience they should have released games for the Wii.
Those companies knew who their audience was, and their audience had a PS3 or a 360.
It might have been easier for them to port to the Wii if the controller for the Wii had more buttons, r if the Classic Controller Pro had been made earlier in the console's lifetime. Figuring out how to put motion controls into an existing game so as to compensate for missing buttons probably would have taken more manpower an money than could be justified, for example. But if they could have just ported over with the same control scheme, it might have been more feasible to risk a Wii port.
I still say it was less about the buttons and more about what's under the hood. Video game engines can't be scaled infinitely in both directions. At a certain point, you're not scaling a game down, but rebuilding it from the ground up for a weaker system. And it's not just polygons and effects. It's AI, number of enemies on screen, physics, etc. Nintendo could have packed a Classic Controller with every system. It wouldn't have made much of a difference.
It's not as simple as saying the Wii sold the most so if third party companies wanted the largest audience they should have released games for the Wii.
Those companies knew who their audience was, and their audience had a PS3 or a 360.
Not at the time, no. In addition gamers go to where the games are when push comes to shove.
Another thing people tend to ignore when they talk about how "the Wii was #1 but 3rd parties still didn't care" is that the people that made the Wii the best selling console weren't people like you and me, who dig games like Zelda and Metroid and post on forums. It sold to people who thought Wii Sports was neato. So many people bought it for Wii Sports and Wii Fit and never bought another game for the life of the system.
I wonder how many Wiis would have been sold had Wii Sports never caught on with the non-gamers. No grandmas, no Oprah crowd, just the people who normally buy video games. I don't think it would have surpassed Gamecube. Perhaps not as bad as Wii U is trending..... somewhere in between.
Posts
I am sad that ZombiU wasn't profitable. Hopefully it being up on the eShop will help it to turn profitable eventually rather than having all those sales wind up going to used purchases.
Rayman sold best on WiiU by a wide margin. The fact that it didn't meet expectations despite selling more than Origins did is a separate problem.
Splinter Cell, well, no excuses. Just sadness, because they're actually trying to make use of the gamepad and it just isn't hitting the way they want.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
No, not yet. Though of course you can play it in Wii mode.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
The closest thing to "must have" versions were late ports with no DLC that were under-advertised (not really at all) and sold at full price.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
At least they finally have more demos at kiosks...
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
That issue is resolved with the Wii U, as the gamepad has the exact same button scheme as any other system's controller, and every one with a Wii U has it. So any game that a third party doesn't want to make Gamepad features for can get away with that.
GameCube says hi.
There's a reason Nintendo went to the Wii strategy. It wasn't something random.
I'm not saying going back to that is necessarily the right course of action. But the Gamecube had a lot of third party support, certainly far more cross-platform releases than they get now. The PS2 just happened to be a behemoth that locked up all the exclusives - these days though exclusives are becoming pretty rare. The Wii was a huge success for them because of the casual market boom that it caused, but that turned out to be lightning in a bottle and they weren't able to figure out a way to recreate it. Now they're in this odd middle ground of playing catch-up with core gamers while also trying to hold on to their Wii audience, all while attempting to champion the next big tech fad, and not really being very successful at any of those things.
Gamecube had pretty bad third party support too. Remember when "coming out for all major consoles" actually meant "coming out for everything but Gamecube"? Back then I was one of those Nintendo-only types and that particular phrase really stung. So it was bad but Nintendo let the wound fester and get a whole lot worse.
What baffles me is when they do that, but then also announce that it won't have multiplayer. Or DLC. Or online. Or some other arbitrary subtraction that keeps it from being the definitive version.
That's plenty of reason. If you're going to gimp your game in any way then get fucked.
https://miiverse.nintendo.net/posts/AYMHAAACAABnUYnYHvYsog
https://miiverse.nintendo.net/posts/AYMHAAACAABnUgHr8WuQcA
https://miiverse.nintendo.net/posts/AYQHAAABAADYUV6pslZdMw
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
In the PS360 days, with pubs wanting to release on as many platforms as possible, the question is more like "Why shouldn't we develop on your platform?" And unfortunately, Nintendo had a lot of answers for that (weaker hardware, "weird" controller, poor attach ratio).
The smaller install base is an unfortunate truth, though. The Wii U desperately needs more games that will sell it.
If third party developers ignored Nintendo when their hardware was outselling the competition combined like 3 to 1, what chance do they have now of getting their support?
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Tomb Raider not coming is an example.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
There are games hat lend themselves to creative use of the game pad, and devs using it interestingly will be a pivotal thing for the console. If they can use it as well as the DS and 3DS have used their secondary touch screens, that will help it.
But the game pad itself shouldn't be a barrier to ports of other games. It has the same buttons, and the screen can be relegated to a map if you've nothing else to do with it.
Funny enough, for me Ubisoft is actually out Nintendoing Nintendo this year on the wiiu. They already released a funner 2d mascot platformer and AC4 sounds like the sequel to Wind Waker that I always wanted. All they need now is a RTS style splinter cell where you fling little sam fishers at terrorists that drop fruit.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
But other than the fact that both games feature sailing... they're nothing alike.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Assassin's Creed and The Legend of Zelda can be shockingly similar at times.
For one thing, each series has roughly the same number of games.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
So... like every LoZ game is really just someone reliving their ancestors lives? Holy shit...
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Those companies knew who their audience was, and their audience had a PS3 or a 360.
It might have been easier for them to port to the Wii if the controller for the Wii had more buttons, r if the Classic Controller Pro had been made earlier in the console's lifetime. Figuring out how to put motion controls into an existing game so as to compensate for missing buttons probably would have taken more manpower an money than could be justified, for example. But if they could have just ported over with the same control scheme, it might have been more feasible to risk a Wii port.
Not at the time, no. In addition gamers go to where the games are when push comes to shove.
I still say it was less about the buttons and more about what's under the hood. Video game engines can't be scaled infinitely in both directions. At a certain point, you're not scaling a game down, but rebuilding it from the ground up for a weaker system. And it's not just polygons and effects. It's AI, number of enemies on screen, physics, etc. Nintendo could have packed a Classic Controller with every system. It wouldn't have made much of a difference.
Another thing people tend to ignore when they talk about how "the Wii was #1 but 3rd parties still didn't care" is that the people that made the Wii the best selling console weren't people like you and me, who dig games like Zelda and Metroid and post on forums. It sold to people who thought Wii Sports was neato. So many people bought it for Wii Sports and Wii Fit and never bought another game for the life of the system.