• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ubisoft: "We won't be showing off any Nintendo games at E3 this year"

Metallix87

Metallix87

Member
prag16 said:
I agree with you to a large extent, but here is where NIntendo bears serious blame as well. While third parties really really didn't help the situation very much, Nintendo still led the way in creating this environment.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Nintendo is blame-free, but it's silly to suggest that third parties are completely blameless in all of this. They made the choice to do what they did on the DS, the Wii, the 3DS, and now the Wii U.

Essentially, Nintendo system owners are basically treated like second class citizens by the large publishers each generation, dating back at least to the Gamecube. "You'll get your sloppy, late ports, you'll get your shovelware, you'll get your sub-par spin-offs, and you'll be denied bonus content and DLC and such, and you'll like it. If you don't? We abandon ship, make random and illogical excuses, and then blame the lot of you!"
 
V

Visualante2

Member
Funny how things turn out...

jbzl5AldXd5LNm.jpg
 
M

MrNyarlathotep

Banned
Quadraphonic said:
People try EVERY generation since the GameCube to give Nintendo and they get fucked over.

The current Nintendo userbase is random. Publishers like games where they can roughly predict sales. Things that succeed and fail on the Wii were determined more on boxart than actual content.
Click to expand...

Sure was impossible for EA to predict a $60 port of the third game in a trilogy was going to sell poorly up against a $40 edition with all three games included.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
Green Slime said:
So those are our only two options? No support or crappy support followed by excuses and the blame game?
Click to expand...
Ummmm, yeah, that's it.

Why would they give the system good support? There's no financial incentive to do it, they're not charities, there's no reason to have been confident in the future of the platform. They need a reason to invest in the platform, and they didn't have one.

Publishers don't 'dislike' Nintendo, there is no vendetta, publishers like money. Supporting the Wii U long term posed huge technical implications for the other platforms, and internal projections must have determined those implications were unacceptable. Publishers could have ended up being wrong, these things are long term bets, decisions have to be made years in advance. That's why the Wii's success was irrelevant to third party support, PS360 was already determined to be the targeted standard for engine technology, and first entries to franchises had already defined their path for the rest of the generation.

If the Wii U had taken off, the situation wouldn't be different. It'd still be getting all the PS360 ports, but it wouldn't get the next-gen stuff at all.
 
Metallix87

Metallix87

Member
StuBurns said:
Ummmm, yeah, that's it.

Why would they give the system good support? There's no financial incentive to do it, they're not charities, there's no reason to have been confident in the future of the platform. They need a reason to invest in the platform, and they didn't have one.

Publishers don't 'dislike' Nintendo, there is no vendetta, publishers like money. Supporting the Wii U long term posed huge technical implications for the other platforms, and internal projections must have determined those implications were unacceptable. Publishers could have ended up being wrong, these things are long term bets, decisions have to be made years in advance. That's why the Wii's success was irrelevant to third party support, PS360 was already determined to be the targeted standard for engine technology, and first entries to franchises had already defined their path for the rest of the generation.

If the Wii U had taken off, the situation wouldn't be different. It'd still be getting all the PS360 ports, but it wouldn't get the next-gen stuff at all.
Click to expand...

Publishers actively banked on the Wii U failing, and treated the Wii U audience like trash as a result. Mind you, this is the successor to the most successful system last gen (again, another platform that third parties actively dropped their fecal matter on), and yet it was relegated to "practically non-existent" status from the get-go.

Some are shocked by Ubisoft's move, but I'm not. Once Rayman Legends was delayed to keep it competitive with the 360 & PS3 versions, but the same courtesy wasn't offered to Watch Dogs a year later, it was obvious to me that Ubisoft never was fully on-board, and their sloppy ports on the system are the proof.
 
2

213372bu

Banned
Green Slime said:
Some are shocked by Ubisoft's move, but I'm not. Once Rayman Legends was delayed to keep it competitive with the 360 & PS3 versions, but the same courtesy wasn't offered to Watch Dogs a year later, it was obvious to me that Ubisoft never was fully on-board, and their sloppy ports on the system are the proof.
Click to expand...
This whole paragraph is full of wrong.

Publishers actively banked on the Wii U failing
Click to expand...

Mind you, this is the successor to the most successful system last gen (again, another platform that third parties actively dropped their fecal matter on)
Click to expand...

uwotm8
 
Petrae

Petrae

Member
MDX said:
Nothing is stopping Ubi from announcing games after E3.

And before people blame Nintendo, how do we know
money wasn't exchanged to keep WiiU games off the show floor?
Click to expand...

That's some serious tinfoil hat-ness right there. Sony and Microsoft know that WiiU is already an also-ran, so why would they pay off Ubisoft to avoid games being shown that nobody is going to buy anyway?

Sales of Ubisoft games on WiiU, despite the publisher's support of the platform, have been weak. It's Ubisoft's call not to show anything (or not to have anything to show) on Nintendo platforms at E3. There's no conspiracy here.
 
X

XaosWolf

Member
Green Slime said:
So those are our only two options? No support or crappy support followed by excuses and the blame game?
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. If you're going to test the waters as such, make it something worth buying and playing. Don't just half-arse it and blame the console manufacturer or consumer.

I mean, they don't owe anything, sure. But that doesn't mean that it's okay to throw out a crap product and expect full profit.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
Green Slime said:
Publishers actively banked on the Wii U failing, and treated the Wii U audience like trash as a result. Mind you, this is the successor to the most successful system last gen (again, another platform that third parties actively dropped their fecal matter on), and yet it was relegated to "practically non-existent" status from the get-go.

Some are shocked by Ubisoft's move, but I'm not. Once Rayman Legends was delayed to keep it competitive with the 360 & PS3 versions, but the same courtesy wasn't offered to Watch Dogs a year later, it was obvious to me that Ubisoft never was fully on-board, and their sloppy ports on the system are the proof.
Click to expand...
You're not being rational at all.

Why should Ubisoft bother? Even Nintendo are saying it'll only have sold ten million by March next year. No one has faith in the platform.
 
Metallix87

Metallix87

Member
StuBurns said:
You're not being rational at all.

Why should Ubisoft bother? Even Nintendo are saying it'll only have sold ten million by March next year. No one has faith in the platform.
Click to expand...

It's irrational to suggest that Ubisoft did themselves no favors on the Wii U? And again, Ubisoft doesn't have to bother, but if they do, they may as well try in earnest to provide worthwhile content at a reasonable rate comparable to other platforms. Why bother at all if you're not going to try to maximize your profit potential and growth potential on the platform?
 
G

Goldenroad

Member
MDX said:
Nothing is stopping Ubi from announcing games after E3.

And before people blame Nintendo, how do we know
money wasn't exchanged to keep WiiU games off the show floor?
Click to expand...

Why would Nintendo pay to have Wii U games kept off the show floor? That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Unless you're saying that other companies paid to keep Wii U games off the show floor, in which case, this got one step crazier.

If you can't accept the simple answer that the Wii U does not have a large enough install base for a company that wants to remain profitable to consider a viable platform, then I guess you can subscribe to whatever kind of crazy conspiracy theories you want. Maybe it turns out Reggie is actually a robot and just none of these Western developers are comfortable working with this kind of cyborg-like creature.
 
2

213372bu

Banned
Blablurn said:
People forget so fast :(
Click to expand...

People don't forget, they just like what they see. Stop with this dumb console loyalty stuff.

Each console has their own reputation based on the actions of their console holder, the console itself, and the games provided to it.

If anything, many people hopped onto the Sony wagon this gen, which were people who were aware of what Sony tried pulling early that gen .
 
T

Tobor

Member
XaosWolf said:
I'm with you on this. If you're going to test the waters as such, make it something worth buying and playing. Don't just half-arse it and blame the console manufacturer or consumer.
Click to expand...

This is such a bad argument. EA and Ubisoft aren't stupid. They know exactly what they've released on the Wii U and set their expectations accordingly. There is no blame and excuses. It's just a bad platform to do business on.

It's not like they expect to make massive bank on this shit. It's a small investment in a platform with a small return on the investment needed to make it worthwhile. They set the bar as low as possible, scraping the floor low, and the Wii U still couldn't clear it.

This mess is 100% Nintendo's fault.
 
Metallix87

Metallix87

Member
Tobor said:
This is such a bad argument. EA and Ubisoft aren't stupid. They know exactly what they've released on the Wii and set their expectations accordingly. There is no blame and excuses. It's just a bad platform to do business on.

It's not like they expect to make massive bank on this shit. It's a small investment in a platform with a small return on the investment needed to make it worthwhile. They set the bar as low as possible, scraping the floor low, and the Wii U still couldn't clear it.

This mess is 100% Nintendo's fault.
Click to expand...

EA released Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U at $60 a few weeks after they released Mass Effect Trilogy on Xbox 360 and PS3 at a lower price point of $40. The Wii U version of 3 actually runs worse than the version on those consoles, especially the 360 version.

Now, you can argue that EA aren't stupid, but going by that logic, they think everyone buying a Wii U IS stupid, and that's definitely not a good mindset when you're looking to sell a product to those consumers.
 
2

213372bu

Banned
Green Slime said:
It's irrational to suggest that Ubisoft did themselves no favors on the Wii U? Yes.

And again, Ubisoft doesn't have to bother, but if they do, they may as well try in earnest to provide worthwhile content at a reasonable rate comparable to other platforms. They were the biggest ones to do so.
Why bother at all if you're not going to try to maximize your profit potential and growth potential on the platform? The developers didn't "try" with Wii U games is the best argument to all things Wii U.
Click to expand...

Answers in bold
, (because I'm too lazy to separate quotes.)
 
M

Mihael Mello Keehl

Banned
Green Slime said:
EA released Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U at $60 a few weeks after they released Mass Effect Trilogy on Xbox 360 and PS3 at a lower price point of $40. The Wii U version of 3 actually runs worse than the version on those consoles, especially the 360 version.

Now, you can argue that EA aren't stupid, but going by that logic, they think everyone buying a Wii U IS stupid, and that's definitely not a good mindset when you're looking to sell a product to those consumers.
Click to expand...
Yea that was some straight up bullshit
 
L

LegendofLex

Member
Quadraphonic said:
People try EVERY generation since the GameCube to give Nintendo and they get fucked over.
Click to expand...

Certainly explains why, for example
the best-selling Sonic game last gen was a Wii exclusive.
why Okami sold more on Wii than on PS2.
why Just Dance on Wii was easily the most profitable franchise on a per game basis that Ubisoft has ever put out.

These are all games that really tightly embraced the Wii audience.

Sonic and Mario were obviously competitors for a long time.
Okami with motion is a nice complement to Zelda with motion.
Just Dance fit right in with the Wii family.

It's kind of like most of the big third-party success stories on NES being side-scrollers. You make games that fit the tastes of the audience. You don't try to force your tastes down the audience's throat.

Given that Nintendo has never been about the types of games that make up most third-party multiplatform AAA lineups, no one should have been surprised that all of these third-party efforts crashed and burned. These games were hardly complementary to the existing Wii U system-selling lineup.

That's not to say that Wii U has had a good enough lineup to be worth complementing by any means. But since when have third-parties ever been able to build install bases that were so dramatically dissimilar to the first-party audience on any platform? It has never happened. The ones that tried it on Xbox and PlayStation were similarly squashed.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
Green Slime said:
It's irrational to suggest that Ubisoft did themselves no favors on the Wii U? And again, Ubisoft doesn't have to bother, but if they do, they may as well try in earnest to provide worthwhile content at a reasonable rate comparable to other platforms. Why bother at all if you're not going to try to maximize your profit potential and growth potential on the platform?
Click to expand...
Because Nintendo wanted publishers to. That's what all console launches are.

Look at PS4 and XBO, their third party launch support was a bunch of ports. They're still just getting a bunch of ports. It's not until this fall when we first see the next-gen only games, at which time, the combined install base for the two should be closing in on eighteen million units, not incredible, but certainly reasonable with the addition of the PC picking up some slack.

The Wii U's launch line up from third parties seemed totally fine to me. People say things like Mass Effect 3 were a slap on the face considering the Trilogy shipped on PS360, but those were just packaging the games and porting ME1 for PS3. Less work went into them than the ME3 port for Wii U almost certainly. It seems like a rough deal, and it is, but in terms of investment, it's very reasonable for a publisher.
 
G

Goldenroad

Member
Green Slime said:
EA released Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U at $60 a few weeks after they released Mass Effect Trilogy on Xbox 360 and PS3 at a lower price point of $40. The Wii U version of 3 actually runs worse than the version on those consoles, especially the 360 version.

Now, you can argue that EA aren't stupid, but going by that logic, they think everyone buying a Wii U IS stupid, and that's definitely not a good mindset when you're looking to sell a product to those consumers.
Click to expand...


Wii U was a new console. People are usually willing to pay a little more for next gen games than previous gen (see indie game pricing on PS4/XB1). There was nothing unfair about pricing Mass Effect 3 at $60 on the Wii U, especially given the maximum amount of copies they could have ever potentially sold. That's what I paid for it on the 360, which is (according to Nintendo fans) a generation before the Wii U.

EA did Nintendo a HUGE favor by helping provide them with the best launch line up out of any of the "next gen" systems...and yet you think EA was out to screw over Nintendo fans. If EA and Ubisoft didn't publish any games at launch for the Wii U, the Wii U would have had no games at launch. They took more of gamble on the Wii U launch then even Nintendo themselves did, and now you're writing some kind of revisionist history where EA and Ubisoft are the bad guys.
 
L

LegendofLex

Member
StuBurns said:
The Wii U's launch line up from third parties seemed totally fine to me.
Click to expand...

Why, when most of the launch titles were tailor-made for the established Xbox/PlayStation audience, would the Wii U launch lineup be "totally fine" to the non-Xbox/PlayStation audience? That audience already rejected these games on Xbox and PlayStation. (That's why they don't own Xboxes and PlayStations.)

(Not to say Nintendo is exempt from blame, as they definitely participated in the "Wii U can replace your other consoles for multiplats" farce.)
 
Metallix87

Metallix87

Member
StuBurns said:
Because Nintendo wanted publishers to. That's what all console launches are.

Look at PS4 and XBO, their third party launch support was a bunch of ports. They're still just getting a bunch of ports. It's not until this fall when we first see the next-gen only games, at which time, the combined install base for the two should be closing in on eighteen million units, not incredible, but certainly reasonable with the addition of the PC picking up some slack.

The Wii U's launch line up from third parties seemed totally fine to me. People say things like Mass Effect 3 were a slap on the face considering the Trilogy shipped on PS360, but those were just packaging the games and porting ME1 for PS3. Less work went into them than the ME3 port for Wii U almost certainly. It seems like a rough deal, and it is, but in terms of investment, it's very reasonable for a publisher.
Click to expand...

The difference is this: No matter what the install base of those two systems are, you know for a fact that all multiplatform titles will be on both, and that all DLC will show up on both platforms. It doesn't matter that one is outselling the other by something like 3:1 worldwide. It doesn't matter. Both will get everything. With the Wii U, consumers were instantly wary of being treated like second party citizens from the get-go. Strange moves like Mass Effect 3, the delays of Need for Speed and Rayman, and the lack of big titles like Tomb Raider were noticed by many, and it's hard for me to say that the consumers are to blame when they know better than to trust third party publishers in this regard.

Your answer is to blame Nintendo, basically. So Nintendo should have to drop millions of dollars just to get everyone interested in their platforms? Do you expect the same of Microsoft and Sony, or do you expect third parties to just line up, deliver top of the line experiences, and never skimp on the DLC on either platform?

Goldenroad said:
Wii U was a new console. People are usually willing to pay a little more for next gen games than previous gen (see indie game pricing on PS4/XB1). There was nothing unfair about pricing Mass Effect 3 at $60 on the Wii U, especially given the maximum amount of copies they could have ever potentially sold. That's what I paid for it on the 360, which is (according to Nintendo fans) a generation before the Wii U.

EA did Nintendo a HUGE favor by helping provide them with the best launch line up out of any of the "next gen" systems...and yet you think EA was out to screw over Nintendo fans. If EA and Ubisoft didn't publish any games at launch for the Wii U, the Wii U would have had no games at launch. They took more of gamble on the Wii U launch then even Nintendo themselves did, and now you're writing some kind of revisionist history where EA and Ubisoft are the bad guys.
Click to expand...

Wow, I've never heard such pathetic excuses for being ripped off by a third party publisher before. "They did us a HUGE favor by providing a single game at launch and over-charging us for a fraction of the content that the older systems got, on top of the game as a whole being of lower quality due to technical issues".
 
G

Goldenroad

Member
Green Slime said:
The difference is this: No matter what the install base of those two systems are, you know for a fact that all multiplatform titles will be on both, and that all DLC will show up on both platforms. It doesn't matter that one is outselling the other by something like 3:1 worldwide. It doesn't matter. Both will get everything. With the Wii U, consumers were instantly wary of being treated like second party citizens from the get-go. Strange moves like Mass Effect 3, the delays of Need for Speed and Rayman, and the lack of big titles like Tomb Raider were noticed by many, and it's hard for me to say that the consumers are to blame when they know better than to trust third party publishers in this regard.

Your answer is to blame Nintendo, basically. So Nintendo should have to drop millions of dollars just to get everyone interested in their platforms? Do you expect the same of Microsoft and Sony, or do you expect third parties to just line up, deliver top of the line experiences, and never skimp on the DLC on either platform?
Click to expand...

I'm just gonna go ahead and ask. Are you Reggie? Why are you so defensive of this company? How can you not open your eyes and see the mistakes that have been made with the Wii U on Nintendo's part?
 
Metallix87

Metallix87

Member
Goldenroad said:
I'm just gonna go ahead and ask. Are you Reggie? Why are you so defensive of this company? How can you not open your eyes and see the mistakes that have been made with the Wii U on Nintendo's part?
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't deny that Nintendo made mistakes on the Wii U. They have. I've stated that numerous times in the past. That being said, though, this silly notion that third parties are blameless and that the Wii U owners were lucky to get that crappy support we got is ludicrous.
 
T

Tobor

Member
Green Slime said:
EA released Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U at $60 a few weeks after they released Mass Effect Trilogy on Xbox 360 and PS3 at a lower price point of $40. The Wii U version of 3 actually runs worse than the version on those consoles, especially the 360 version.

Now, you can argue that EA aren't stupid, but going by that logic, they think everyone buying a Wii U IS stupid, and that's definitely not a good mindset when you're looking to sell a product to those consumers.
Click to expand...

I'm sure anyone at EA would tell you they expected the Wii U port of ME3 to sell worse than the collection on other consoles. Not a doubt in my mind. It also doesn't matter. That's already factored into their expected numbers.

Intentionally low expectations still need to be met.
 
M

MrNyarlathotep

Banned
StuBurns said:
People say things like Mass Effect 3 were a slap on the face considering the Trilogy shipped on PS360, but those were just packaging the games and porting ME1 for PS3. Less work went into them than the ME3 port for Wii U almost certainly. It seems like a rough deal, and it is, but in terms of investment, it's very reasonable for a publisher.
Click to expand...

Content is the biggest expenditure of time and resources in development.#
Engine work is the biggest technical hurdle.

It would have 'cost' EA incredibly little extra to add the first two games to the release.

Same as if someone wanted to make a "CoD greatest hits" for some unspecified hypothetical platform; the technical work would be getting the engine running. Once you've done that, you get all of the content 'free'. Once they got Black Ops 2 up and running, they get all the other games MW onwards 'free'.
 
J

John Harker

Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Green Slime said:
EA released Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U at $60 a few weeks after they released Mass Effect Trilogy on Xbox 360 and PS3 at a lower price point of $40. The Wii U version of 3 actually runs worse than the version on those consoles, especially the 360 version.

Now, you can argue that EA aren't stupid, but going by that logic, they think everyone buying a Wii U IS stupid, and that's definitely not a good mindset when you're looking to sell a product to those consumers.
Click to expand...

No, you just have a very limited perspective on this...
As much as your average NeoGaf, hardcore gaming poster would be loathe to admit, the overlap of people who are (see: were, really, like 4-5 years ago when this was all being scoped out) active Wii owners is a fraction of those that are active PS3/Xbox owners. Something like, 30%. Might be like 34% last I checked a few years ago.

So, it's an entirely different market.
Nintendo was pitching the Wii U as an easy machine to bring publishers core franchises to that sold millions on Xbox and PS3 to an audience who had not played those franchises before. It was positioned as good ROI; load these franchises now, bring that other 66% of our market into your worlds, and then when you release new ones, now you have a much bigger pie to sell to... people who are xbox360/ps3 gamers AND the nebulous 'nintendo owner,' since now we have compatable hardware. Also we have this really cool tablet controller that can make Enhanced Editions of your games for little extra cost on your end, but tables are hot and gameplay is king so things will sell to our audience if you take advantage.

And, publishers listened. EA did it, Square did it, Acti did it, Ubi did it and a little more with some original titles...

It's what Nintendo said was going to be a good plan, it's what everyone agreed to, it's what products were made for... and the Wii U never took off. It just didn't work. It wasn't a bad strategy, it wasn't stupid... The Wii U proposition itself was just not something that was adopted. People didn't "get" it. You can blame the confusing marketing and messaging, or the fact that people had 8 years of these graphics already and the market now prioritizes graphics over gameplay, or a million other reasons, but "stupid" isn't really a full picture when this was the original plan from all sides. I get it, at least. But now everyone sees that Nintendo has failed to light a fire in consumers, so they are waiting to see what Nintendo's next move is... it's their platform. everyone's lost money listening to them so far, so once the ship gets alight, content will be made again when it's determined viable.

This isnt like, some big conspiracy.
As I've said many times before, it's math.
 
L

LegendofLex

Member
Tobor said:
I'm sure anyone at EA would tell you they expected the Wii U port of ME3 to sell worse than the collection on other consoles. Not a doubt in my mind. It also doesn't matter. That's already factored into their expected numbers.

Intentionally low expectations still need to be met.
Click to expand...

I think the question that really needs to be asked of EA's effort is why Mass Effect was ever considered a candidate in the first place. It probably was largely due to (false) promises from Nintendo. But, at the same time, EA should have enough market acumen by now to understand that repackaging PlayStation/Xbox games on Nintendo consoles just doesn't work.
 
G

Goldenroad

Member
Green Slime said:
As I said, I don't deny that Nintendo made mistakes on the Wii U. They have. I've stated that numerous times in the past. That being said, though, this silly notion that third parties are blameless and that the Wii U owners were lucky to get that crappy support we got is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Just sell the Wii U then and get a console then that has the support you are looking for. If you're not happy with the support Nintendo has been able to get from third parties, then quit supporting them. Vote with your dollars. Buy a console that has the best third party support and you can be happy and stop worrying about defending this company that you have absolutely no stake in.
 
J

jimi_dini

Member
MrNyarlathotep said:
Sure was impossible for EA to predict a $60 port of the third game in a trilogy was going to sell poorly up against a $40 edition with all three games included.
Click to expand...

The price wasn't the worst problem.

Who the hell was the target audience for Mass Effect 3 on Wii U? Mass Effect - a game series, where you are able to transfer your character to the next game in the series. Oh wait, this wasn't possible on Wii U, because only the last one was released. People interested in this type of game probably already played the first or second game on PS3 or 360. Why would those people buy a sequel on Wii U, when they can't even transfer their character in that case? Who was actually supposed to buy this game on Wii U?

It's actually surprising that more than 0 copies were sold. Anyone with a bit of a brain left would have expected this Wii U version to sell 0 copies.
 
Metallix87

Metallix87

Member
Tobor said:
I'm sure anyone at EA would tell you they expected the Wii U port of ME3 to sell worse than the collection on other consoles. Not a doubt in my mind. It also doesn't matter. That's already factored into their expected numbers.

Intentionally low expectations still need to be met.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. It was a product that no one in their right minds would have bought, and thus no one did.

Picture the scenario like this:

Option A: "Buy the full trilogy of the Mass Effect series on one of the systems you already own, at a lower price point, and running as they are intended to."

or

Option B: "Buy the third game over a half of a year after the initial release on my new system, at a higher price point than the entire trilogy would cost me on my current systems, AND the game runs worse to boot! What a steal!"

It's ridiculous. Why would anyone go for Option B?

John Harker said:
This isnt like, some big conspiracy.
As I've said many times before, it's math.
Click to expand...

Math based on flawed logic: The idea that third parties can't find success on Nintendo platforms. It's essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure.

Goldenroad said:
Just sell the Wii U then and get a console then that has the support you are looking for. If you're not happy with the support Nintendo has been able to get from third parties, then quit supporting them. Vote with your dollars. Buy a console that has the best third party support and you can be happy and stop worrying about defending this company that you have absolutely no stake in.
Click to expand...

Why would I sell the Wii U? I'll just buy an Xbox One later for my third party content. Nintendo may have screwed up their system, but they still deliver the best first party content in the industry. I'm not going to sacrifice that to prove a point to them.
 
M

MrNyarlathotep

Banned
John Harker said:
it's an entirely different market.
Nintendo was pitching the Wii U as an easy machine to bring publishers core franchises to that sold millions on Xbox and PS3 to an audience who had not played those franchises before.
Click to expand...

Which makes it even more baffling why EA would release the final part of a narrative driven trilogy thats USP was that choices had consequences that would perist across the series and expect it to sell anything at all.

Released as a trilogy; yes, expand the IP to new markets.

Released as a standalone, final and critically weakest chapter devoid of context? Why?

EDIT:
jimi_dini said:
The price wasn't the worst problem.

Who the hell was the target audience for Mass Effect 3 on Wii U? Mass Effect - a game series, where you are able to transfer your character to the next game in the series. Oh wait, this wasn't possible on Wii U, because only the last one was released. People interested in this type of game probably already played the first or second game on PS3 or 360. Why would those buy a sequel on Wii U, when they can't even transfer their character in that case? Who was actually supposed to buy this game on Wii U?

It's actually surprising that more than 0 copies were sold.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Which is why this talk of EA being 'the good guys' seems a little at odds with common sense.
 
M

Mihael Mello Keehl

Banned
Goldenroad said:
Just sell the Wii U then and get a console then that has the support you are looking for. If you're not happy with the support Nintendo has been able to get from third parties, then quit supporting them. Vote with your dollars. Buy a console that has the best third party support and you can be happy and stop worrying about defending this company that you have absolutely no stake in.
Click to expand...
What the hell lol?
 
G

Goldenroad

Member
Green Slime said:
Why would I sell the Wii U? I'll just buy an Xbox One later for my third party content. Nintendo may have screwed up their system, but they still deliver the best first party content in the industry. I'm not going to sacrifice that to prove a point to them.
Click to expand...

If you're happy with the Wii U just for the first party content, then why are you upset with the lack of third party content, or the "sub-par third party content", as you put it? I think there are a lot of Wii U owners like you, who bought a Wii U to play the Marios and Zeldas and Pikmins and so forth, and as a result, why would a third party publisher even bother with making games for a market that is clearly not interested in those games? You have to understand that you saying that you're happy with your Wii U because of the first party games alone, is a huge part of the reason why there are no third party games for that system.
 
T

Tobor

Member
This is the best part.

It was Mass Effect 3 because Nintendo asked for Mass Effect 3.

No inside info, but I bet I'm right. It's the cherry on the shit sundae.
 
M

MrNyarlathotep

Banned
Tobor said:
This is the best part.

It was Mass Effect 3 because Nintendo asked for Mass Effect 3.

No inside info, but I bet I'm right. It's the cherry on the shit sundae.
Click to expand...

Here's the best bit; EA wanted to play kingmaker with the other consoles, and were slighted at not being allowed to run nintendos entire online infrastructure, so intentionally released shit products they knew wouldn't sell so they had a very public out of their publishing agreements.

No inside info, but making shit up is lulzy
 
L

LegendofLex

Member
Tobor said:
This is the best part.

It was Mass Effect 3 because Nintendo asked for Mass Effect 3.

No inside info, but I bet I'm right. It's the cherry on the shit sundae.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. Very clear from Nintendo's statements about third parties' roles in establishing an install base that they wanted to have that audience without actually building it themselves.
 
Metallix87

Metallix87

Member
Goldenroad said:
If you're happy with the Wii U just for the first party content, then why are you upset with the lack of third party content, or the "sub-par third party content", as you put it? I think there are a lot of Wii U owners like you, who bought a Wii U to play the Marios and Zeldas and Pikmins and so forth, and as a result, why would a third party publisher even bother with making games for a market that is clearly not interested in those games? You have to understand that you saying that you're happy with your Wii U because of the first party games alone, is a huge part of the reason why there are no third party games for that system.
Click to expand...

"I'm happy with the first party content" =/= "I don't want good third party content on the system"

I own several third party titles on my Wii U: Zombi U, Sonic All-Stars Racing, Need for Speed, etc. Those are titles that take advantage of the hardware and don't make me feel like I've been ripped off buying an overall inferior product. That's what I want. I don't want third parties putting me in the awkward position by saying "Hey, buy our crappy games on Wii U or we'll stop putting out content on Wii U altogether!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

With E3 death, most games reveals will move to the year's start? Or to some other period?
5
356
Bridges replied
Phil Spencer Has Now Been Head of Xbox for 10 Years; We Look Back at His First Decade
4
597
Oppoi replied
Ubisoft Will Be at E3 2023 & Will Have "A Lot of Things to Show"
17
1K
Kurotri replied
[Insider Gaming] Inside Ubisoft – From Low Morale To Internal Tensions
Game Dev
26
2K
BacklashWave534 replied
Ubisoft is on the NFT sauce again: A new partnership with Web3 platform Immutable aims to create 'a fresh new experience that players will love'
News Drama Game Dev
24
2K
Pelta88 replied
Top Bottom