Support NeoGAF

[doniewhalberg]

Not that I'll dispute that companies have been let down by hardware and software sales on the Wii U, that is absolutely clear, and I've wrote in a few threads exactly what I think the Wii U's problems are ( GAMES ), but just reading OP, this is so strange:

I had a data point yesterday at lunch with a high budget Wii U game that was hoping to sell "millions" over time. It only managed "tens of thousands".

I mean the quote states the publisher in question was hoping to sell millions of a game over time, however then in past tense it had only managed tens of thousands. I just find it strange to say when the thing literally only came out 10 weeks ago. Yes, those ten weeks have not been spectacular, but if it already sold tens of thousands in 10 weeks, I'm not sure why said publisher would be acting like the game was done selling and will be off shelves as of now, and that's the game hit its max. Unless we're talking about Darksiders 2 here or something.

Just seemed a strange quote. We need to keep perspective that the Wii U isn't doing too hot, but also that it's barely been out 2 months of what will likely be at least a 4-5 year life cycle.

 

[WiiredShawn]

I don't want to oversimplify the matter: please, tell me if I'm wrong.

-Wii U has been on the market since like three (3) months.
-Third party sw on the system consists (for at least the 80% of the total) in rushed ports from older consoles; this software in many cases is not even optimized enough to take advantage of the screen feature.
-Those games are similar, if not inferior in graphic performances, to the same games developed months ago for PS3 and XBOX.


Being the effort of third parties so lacking in commitment, and so inadequate in pushing wiiu sales, do you think it's a right approach from the same softhouses to not support the console, disinvesting so early from it?
Did they assume that in a nearly economic recession period people would have bought the same software they already played months ago on other systems?
Did they really think that despite the lack of new software they produced for wiiu that console would have magically sold itself and players would have enjoyed those low quality ports?

I think your point is well-made, and I suspect that publishers thought that the strength of the Wii brand, coupled with the "new and shiny" and "latest Christmas gadget" factors, would be sufficient to sell their shoddy ports. But it was a foolish assumption, if so, because many of the casual players who made the Wii a huge success are not early adopters, especially with so few casual-friendly titles on the system at launch. And experienced gamers likely don't want to play inferior versions of old games.

 

[farnham]

Who says we're talking major investment here? Given that Western third parties were already predisposed to the notion that core games can't sell on Nintendo consoles, I don't find it hard to believe that poor sales of BOII/ACIII were sufficient rationale to justify cancelling some PS3/360 ports that had previously been planned.

delaying even more.. maybe. but outright cancelling it? what for? many people predicted that the wiiu will have big problems in january and february looking at the lineup. but nobody knows how the sales will look in a few month after wii fit launches.

 

[deviljho]

This quote from The Gameological Society's review of the Wii U hardware is harsh, but I find it pretty accurate:



There are a myriad of possibilities for how the Game Pad can be used, of course, but none are as intuitive or as immediately appealing as motion control. That's why I just don't see another Wii Sports or Wii Fit-sized casual success happening.

1) These constant comparisons to the Wii's successes are completely useless.

2) Calling the controller screen a gimmick only works at a high level of abstraction.

 

[Sadist]

The thing I find hard to believe is that there even were projects to be canceled.

I find that very very hard to believe.

After all that amazing support for the Wii, 3rd parties suddenly investing a lot in the WiiU just to cancel stuff 2 months in, just sounds too convenient of an excuse.

I expect a barrage of mock posts because of this, but to some degree I understand this train of thought. Sure, "you don't buy Nintendo consoles for third party software" but a lot of people who just prefer Nintendo consoles over the other two are just this indifferent towards third parties on Nintendo consoles. I know I am. Yes it's a problem partially created by the guys in Kyoto, but third parties are a part of it as well.

Personally I think third partiies pushed it over the edge in the Wii era. The amount of people I witnessed ignoring the third party shelves all together is staggering.

 

[Huff]

The thing I find hard to believe is that there even were projects to be canceled.

I find that very very hard to believe.

After all that amazing support for the Wii, 3rd parties suddenly investing a lot in the WiiU just to cancel stuff 2 months in, just sounds too convenient of an excuse.

Projects don't mean that they were 3 weeks away from release. Project being cancelled can mean anywhere in development after the team go the approval.

A game cancelled in the design stage is still as cancelled as a game that had a bunch of programming done.

No one is telling people that they cancelled fake projects. Why would they do that?

 

[Mario]

For just continuing their farce of talking nice in public and completely laughing about the mere thought of spending any budget worth more than a Happy Meal on projects on a Nintendo hardware.

There is no ongoing conspiracy here. If a publisher can make money reliably on a platform, they'll support it.

Hardware sales are below expectations. Software sales are below expectations. Publishers are retracting from the platform as a result. It really is that simple.

Attaching emotional motivations to large corporates in an industry like this is just projection and paranoia.

 

[faridmon]

i dont think anybody bought a wii solely for third party games.

Casuals don't care whether its first party or third games as long as it was along their taste. Wii U doesn't offer anything that the Wii offers and creates market confusion.

 

[Zoramon089]

There is no ongoing conspiracy here. If a publisher can make money reliably on a platform, they'll support it.

Hardware sales are below expectations. Software sales are below expectations. Publishers are retracting from the platform as a result. It really is that simple.

Attaching emotional motivations to large corporates in an industry like this is just projection and paranoia.

Yeah, but the main issue is, can anyone name a big budget Wii title from a 3rd party publisher than completely flopped? And I don't mean a quick port, or one released months after. There aren't any examples that have failed because there aren't any examples period.

The last big 3rd party title Nintendo has even had from a 3rd party dev was RE4 on the GC and it only sold around a million less than the PS2 version despite the gap in their fanbases being over 5x

 

[prag16]

So then, no 3rd party games? They didnt have to be as powerful as PS4 and Next XBOX, they just had to be powerful enough for games to be ported to the Wii U. It isnt.

It's too early to say that with any certainty. We're looking at a smaller gap this time, both raw numbers wise and features-wise. If it doesn't get ports (which will probably mostly be the case unfortunately), it likely won't be because the powah is too weak, at least not in most cases.

That's really shortsighted. A decent online system combined with better hardware would make Nitnendo's uniqueness even more pronounced since their unique features & games would be even better.

Wii U's online system IS "decent". And as for hardware power; Nintendo left that arms race years ago. It's not the only way to push compelling software. Power is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for good games.

Don't get me wrong, Nintendo has made several mistakes along the way. And while the Wii U's online system is "decent" there are signs they still don't "get" online (NSMBU and Nintendoland missed opportunities. But some people think trying to be a clone of MSFT/Sony will be the magic bullet... it won't be.

 

[Father_Brain]

There is no ongoing conspiracy here. If a publisher can make money reliably on a platform, they'll support it.

Hardware sales are below expectations. Software sales are below expectations. Publishers are retracting from the platform as a result. It really is that simple.

Attaching emotional motivations to large corporates in an industry like this is just projection and paranoia.

Well, you yourself did say that third parties were much more inclined to give PS3 the benefit of the doubt when their software on it was selling well below expectations.

I certainly don't think there's any kind of visceral hatred of Nintendo at play here, but I do think that there is a set of preexisting assumptions regarding Nintendo platforms and attendant confirmation bias.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Who says we're talking major investment here? Given that Western third parties were already predisposed to the notion that core games can't sell on Nintendo consoles, I don't find it hard to believe that poor sales of BOII/ACIII were sufficient rationale to justify cancelling some PS3/360 ports that had previously been planned.

I might be cynical, but even cheap 360 ports would allready be more investment than anything 3rd parties did invest on Wii. I bet most ports would have a bigger budget than most 3rd party Wii games even got.

Given how even ZombiU was made on a minuscule budget (was hinted at by the developers last year) It's not far fetched to think that there was never much incentive to even begin serious investment in the WiiU.

 

[Baconsammy]

There is no ongoing conspiracy here. If a publisher can make money reliably on a platform, they'll support it.

Hardware sales are below expectations. Software sales are below expectations. Publishers are retracting from the platform as a result. It really is that simple.

Attaching emotional motivations to large corporates in an industry like this is just projection and paranoia.

But it's so much more fun to make you guys out to be boogeymen whose sole purpose in life is to haunt Nintendo. How dare you be rational.

 

[Verendus]

I think some folks are seriously deluded here. You want Nintendo to support their console by themselves. Yeah, that worked out really well in the past. We all know how successful the N64 and Gamecube were after all. It wasn't Mario or Zelda that made the Wii the success that it was. It was Wii Sports and titles like Wii Fit. Those titles were tied in with the motion gaming direction that caused a huge buzz for Nintendo. There's no guarantee you can create that level of success with casual audiences again. It's already quite apparent they're not re-creating that with the Wii U. But sure, let's propose such an asinine opinion as if it's a direction any sensible hardware company would make.

Nintendo needs to allign itself with the direction third parties are going if it wants proper support. You can't stay a generation behind technology wise then expect third parties to stay behind with you. These publishers and developers are already moving beyond that point. They only have a set amount of resources they can dedicate to development too.

 

[Mario]

Well, you yourself did say that third parties were much more inclined to give PS3 the benefit of the doubt when their software on it was selling well below expectations.

It was a different time in a different market with a different set of precedents and expectations.

 

[squidyj]

Why's that? They literally said that was the case with the 3DS. I'll try and find the quote

Nintendo: "here's what we're going to do we're going to do exactlyw hat the hell we wnt with our hardware, nothing that you want, we're not going to document anything, our sdk isn't; even going to be finished but we'd really like you to go ahead and fill in that software gap at launch on our console that'll have shit all install base, because we're tired and we don't really understand this whole 'HD' thing, kay?"

 

[ahm998]

"The reason that we're not making a Wii U-version of Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2 is because of our resources. We have a limited amount of people working on the title. About 60 people worked on the first title and that's a pretty small team. With the sequel we have slightly expanded that team, but in order to make a Wii U-version, we need about 20 to 30 extra people. Next to that, we're already pretty far into the development of Lords of Shadow 2, so it would be very hard for us to work on a Wii U-version without negatively effecting the general development of the title. That's the only reason there won't be a Wii U-version, it's not that we don't want to make it, it's just that it wouldn't make sense for us to do so right now." - David Cox, producer

What do you think ?

 

[chertipros]

What do you think ?

Seems like a fine reason to me. I doubt It'd be because he hates nintendo or whatever since he is a known nintendo fan

 

[Baconsammy]

Why's that? They literally said that was the case with the 3DS. I'll try and find the quote

Because Nintendo can't be that stupid. They know the third party sales situation on their devices is bad. There's no way a sane, competent company would put the fate of their hardware launch in the hands of unproven commodities with a history of failing. But let's presume they were that dumb. What did it get them with the 3DS? A 100 dollar price cut within months of release. Are we to assume they saw that and said, "Hey that worked well, let's do it again with our console!". I personally doubt it. Granted you may be right, and they are seeing very similar results with both launches.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

For just continuing their farce of talking nice in public and completely laughing about the mere thought of spending any budget worth more than a Happy Meal on projects on a Nintendo hardware.

While developers might be interested in working for the Wii/WiiU, Publishers aren't.

The last 6 years were nothing but hollow PR modelled talk about how they respect Nintendo and want to deliver the best content they can. Which was complete and utter bullshit that didn't fool anyone.

To think that 3rd party publishers would've suddenly changed their mind completely is really hard to believe.

Especially when even since the unveiling of the WiiU 3rd parties used the same bullshit PR speak: We want to support it, but we need to create a game that uses the unique capabilities etc etc.

It might be that there really was a complete turnaround prior to release, but it's just too hard to believe.

5 of the largest Western 3rd party games of 2012 are Wii U launch games. Well, NBA 2k13 is coming soon. Games like Tomb Raider and Crysis and Metro and Dark Souls are fluff compared to these franchises. I think a lot of Nintendo fans here like the "idea" of big 3rd party support more than the actual implementation, which is little to no exclusive content, the occasional port that *gasp* drops a few frames next to the competition, and yes, lots of shootbang dudebro sports and action titles. If none of that sounds compelling, and if none of the launch sounds compelling, why should they bother financing ports of Battlefield/NCAA/Splinter Cell/Metal Gear? To hear more excuses? These games aren't going to be magically better on Wii U.

 

[axisofweevils]

Seems like a fine reason to me. I doubt It'd be because he hates nintendo or whatever since he is a known nintendo fan

Yep, especially given his 3DS more exciting than Vita comments.

 

[Terrell]

It was a different time in a different market with a different set of precedents and expectations.

Such as? Just saying "well, that's different" isn't gonna fly if the difference isn't being described.

 

[farnham]

There is no ongoing conspiracy here. If a publisher can make money reliably on a platform, they'll support it.

Hardware sales are below expectations. Software sales are below expectations. Publishers are retracting from the platform as a result. It really is that simple.

Attaching emotional motivations to large corporates in an industry like this is just projection and paranoia.

I would believe this if there were actually games with decent budgets on wii.

 

[lantus]

Well, you yourself did say that third parties were much more inclined to give PS3 the benefit of the doubt when their software on it was selling well below expectations.

Yeah, but 3rd parties never had the same kind of history with Sony like they did Nintendo. Success was arguably harder to come by on Nintendo's platform than Sony's.

 

[Herb Alpert]

What do you think ?

he kinda pulled a kojima. a reversed kojima I might say. how ironic.

 

[Zoramon089]

5 of the largest Western 3rd party games of 2012 are Wii U launch games. Well, NBA 2k13 is coming soon. Games like Tomb Raider and Crysis and Metro and Dark Souls are fluff compared to these franchises. I think a lot of Nintendo fans here like the "idea" of big 3rd party support more than the actual implementation, which is little to no exclusive content, the occasional port that *gasp* drops a few frames next to the competition, and yes, lots of shootbang dudebro sports and action titles. If none of that sounds compelling, and if none of the launch sounds compelling, why should they bother financing ports of Battlefield/NCAA/Splinter Cell/Metal Gear? To hear more excuses? These games aren't going to be magically better on Wii U.

I can't believe you're actually trying to act like ports of games released almost a year ago count as support. The only large western titles that weren't jokes were CoD:BLOPS2 and AC3. Batman and ME3 were laughable ideas and expected anyone to still buy them months later was beyond foolish.

The EA sports games weren't even based on the current PS3/360 versions. They were based on the previous years. There' a thread showing FIFA has the exact same assets as the previous years version, with the only difference being the 12 changed to a a 13. This isn't real support. Although, I will give FIFA credit for having pretty awesome gamepad support

 

[AOC83]

Such as? Just saying "well, that's different" isn't gonna fly if the difference isn't being described.

The PS3 was the successor of the most successful console of all time and third parties needed it to survive. They don´t need the WiiU, so there is no reason to invest or take risks.

 

[farnham]

I can't believe you're actually trying to act like ports of games released almost a year ago count as support. The only large western titles that weren't jokes were CoD:BLOPS2 and AC3. Batman and ME3 were laughable ideas and expected anyone to still buy them months later was beyond foolish.

The EA sports games weren't even based on the current PS3/360 versions. They were based on the previous years. There' a thread showing FIFA has the exact same assets as the previous years version, with the only difference being the 12 changed to a a 13. This isn't real support. Although, I will give FIFA credit for having pretty awesome gamepad support

it is? I wanted to wait for PES as the Wii edition was great but if FIFAs gamepad support is good i might buy it

 

[Mario]

Such as?

Am on my phone, but to quickly summarize at the debut of the PS3 Sony had the success of the PS2 behind them, retail market was growing not in decline, there were less competing devices/channels, and financial markets/investors viewed consoles more favorably.

 

[farnham]

The PS3 was the successor of the most successful console of all time and third parties needed it to survive. They don´t need the WiiU, so there is no reason to invest or take risks.

Yup but admitting that third parties dont need wiiu would be better for everyone involved than pulling off that charade and acting like people were thinking to support it when they arent.

 

[Terrell]

The PS3 was the successor of the most successful console of all time and third parties needed it to survive. They don´t need the WiiU, so there is no reason to invest or take risks.

Ummmm... the Wii U is the successor to the fastest-selling hardware in history and the declared winner of the previous generation. Didn't stop anyone from turning their nose up at either of those machines, either.

So I'm gonna wait for Mario here to explain the situation and how it's somehow different.

 

[farnham]

Am on my phone, but to quickly summarize at the debut of the PS3 Sony had the success of the PS2 behind them, retail market was growing not in decline, there were less competing devices/channels, and financial markets/investors viewed consoles more favorably.

If retail is in decline and the financial markets regard gaming as something not that lucrative.
Isnt it counterproductive to kill off any support for the market leader last gen then? Them failing would really limit the customerbase of gaming companies to a very small fraction of the population (15-35 year old males)

 

[shinra-bansho]

i meant releasing there titles a a steady pace to avoid droughts

I really don't see how it's feasible without some manner of third party support. Even Nintendo's first party isn't that prolific.

maybe they cant talk about them?

Believe. lol.

That is assuming that something new and popular, like Professor Layton or Brain Training was for the DS's touch screen, doesnt come along.

Why would one assume that some sort of phenomenal craze will happen?

it all comes down to marketing. it will be harder but i dont think its impossible.

There isn't a singular clear coherent message to market and the potential uses can be mutually exclusive.

Ummmm... the Wii U is the successor to the fastest-selling hardware in history and the declared winner of the previous generation. Didn't stop anyone from turning their nose up at either of those machines, either.

Of the Wii and the PS2, which one actually provided a market for third party publishers' titles? The PS2 wasn't just the most successful home console ever in terms of hardware.

 

[AOC83]

Yup but admitting that third parties dont need wiiu would be better for everyone involved than pulling off that charade and acting like people were thinking to support it when they arent.

I agree. There is no point in pretending the WiiU will ever get a healthy third party support, this ship has sailed.

 

[Herb Alpert]

wait... is there people here considering that porting a one year old game is supporting a platform?
the mere idea of this is so stupid. "hey you nintendo fan, I want you to discover this : mass effect 3. you hadn't played things as incredible as this on your "wii", have you? well thank me because I love you."
it's well known, people who play nintendo consoles don't play anything else.

 

[Baconsammy]

Ummmm... the Wii U is the successor to the fastest-selling hardware in history and the declared winner of the previous generation. Didn't stop anyone from turning their nose up at either of those machines, either.

So I'm gonna wait for Mario here to explain the situation and how it's somehow different.

Successor to a console that sold well initially, and then was all but dead the past 2-3 years due in large part to it being a graveyard for third party titles. Think that instills confidence? These companies will do whatever it takes if they think there's money to be made. They don't see that with Nintendo, and it's not because of some childish little vendetta they have against them.

 

[Wickerbasket]

please list the games released from western publishers that had budgets similar to GTA, Red Dead Redemption, Halo, Call of Duty etc.

What does that have to do with what you quoted? Maybe you meant to quote someone else?

I'm saying that Nintendo releases great games on all of it's consoles, and to say that the reason the Wii sold so well was because the Wii's Nintendo games were somehow better than their previous attempts on previous consoles is flawed. The Wii's sales were due to a whole load of other factors, like I mentioned previously.

 

[farnham]

Successor to a console that sold well initially, and then was all but dead the past 2-3 years due in large part to it being a graveyard for third party titles. Think that instills confidence? These companies will do whatever it takes if they think there's money to be made. They don't see that with Nintendo, and it's not because of some childish little vendetta they have against them.

Graveyard? Lol which third party ever invested significant resources into wii development aside of nintendo?

 

[GulAtiCa]

Ummmm... the Wii U is the successor to the fastest-selling hardware in history and the declared winner of the previous generation. Didn't stop anyone from turning their nose up at either of those machines, either.

While true, the Wii was also kind of dead the last year or 2. I don't think that kind of staleness was helping at all.

 

[Baconsammy]

Graveyard? Lol which third party ever invested significant resources into wii development aside of nintendo?

EA. Boom Blox. Boom Blox sequel. Versions of their sports games tailored to the strengths of the Wii, going so far as to use Tiger Woods Wii in their marketing campaign for that series. I know it's easier to play the victim card, but the fact remains the Wii got support. Not going to blame publishers for the fact that consumers didn't care. The graveyard comment referred to the fact that in the past 2-3 years it's been a dead zone when it comes to Nintendo software, and because they never bothered to engender real third party support, there was nothing there to prop up the console after they abandoned it. How's that for instilling confidence in third parties that it will be different the next time?

 

[Terrell]

Of the Wii and the PS2, which one actually provided a market for third party publishers' titles? The PS2 wasn't just the most successful home console ever in terms of hardware.

The market existed on PS2 and PS3 because 3rd-parties were heartily present in it. Without any games, the PS3 has the same 3rd-party sales advantage as any console would, Nintendo's included. 3rd-parties make the market for their content, no matter what anyone says to the contrary.

Successor to a console that sold well initially, and then was all but dead the past 2-3 years due in large part to it being a graveyard for third party titles. Think that instills confidence? These companies will do whatever it takes if they think there's money to be made. They don't see that with Nintendo, and it's not because of some childish little vendetta they have against them.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy at its most accurate real-world definition. 3rd-parties decide not to make titles for the system, it stops selling and 3rd-parties use a situation they helped to cause to justify not making titles for it.

You see how little sense that makes, right?

 

[SmokyDave]

Ummmm... the Wii U is the successor to the fastest-selling hardware in history and the declared winner of the previous generation. Didn't stop anyone from turning their nose up at either of those machines, either.

So I'm gonna wait for Mario here to explain the situation and how it's somehow different.

Baby, it ain't over 'til it's over.

 

[farnham]

EA. Boom Blox. Boom Blox sequel. Versions of their sports games tailored to the strengths of the Wii, going so far as to use Tiger Woods Wii in their marketing campaign for that series. I know it's easier to play the victim card, but the fact remains the Wii got support. Not going to blame publishers for the fact that consumers didn't care.

Boom blox had a budget similar to big third party releases? I dont buy that. They probably had a budget comparable to a mid sized Downloadable title.

Tiger woods on wii sold rather well btw

 

[NateDrake]

EA. Boom Blox. Boom Blox sequel. Versions of their sports games tailored to the strengths of the Wii, going so far as to use Tiger Woods Wii in their marketing campaign for that series. I know it's easier to play the victim card, but the fact remains the Wii got support. Not going to blame publishers for the fact that consumers didn't care. The graveyard comment referred to the fact that in the past 2-3 years it's been a dead zone when it comes to Nintendo software, and because they never bothered to engender real third party support, there was nothing there to prop up the console after they abandoned it. How's that for instilling confidence in third parties that it will be different the next time?

I think Tiger Woods sold best on Wii in most cases.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The market existed on PS2 and PS3 because 3rd-parties were heartily present in it. Without any games, the PS3 has the same 3rd-party sales advantage as any console would, Nintendo's included. They make the market for their content, no matter what anyone says to the contrary.

Do you not see an onus on platform holders to cultivate a market on their system for publishers?
Do you not think Sony and Microsoft have actively cultivated such a market?
Do you think Nintendo have actively cultivated such an audience?

 

[Duxxy3]

it all comes down to marketing. it will be harder but i dont think its impossible.

The was the magic of the Wii. Once people tried out Wii Sports or even watched somebody else they understood the Wii. Marketing wasn't as necessary because it was intuitive for everyone of every age and experience.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

If I was going to release a shooter or something on the wiiU and was working on it, and then saw that call of duty of all games couldn't sell shit, I'd probably drop it or release elsewhere o_0 I think people are over-thinking things. If a publisher feels that there is a good chance their games wont sell, then they won't take that risk. Is it definitive? No, of course not. It might sell great. But they view the landscape and make an educated decision on the subject based on whatever factors they deem important in making that decision.

It's up to Nintendo and only Nintendo to foster the type of audience that will buy "bro" games as an example, not hope 3rd parties will create that audience. Sony goes after that market who like action games by making Killzone, by making Uncharted, and it doesn't stop them from making their other styles of game as well. That's how you build audiences and appetites. Nintendo isn't doing this. Simple as that.

 

[Baconsammy]

I think Tiger Woods sold best on Wii in most cases.

And yet Farnham sticks to his woe-as-me-no-one-supported-the-Wii shtick.

 

[Diablos54]

EA. Boom Blox. Boom Blox sequel. Versions of their sports games tailored to the strengths of the Wii, going so far as to use Tiger Woods Wii in their marketing campaign for that series. I know it's easier to play the victim card, but the fact remains the Wii got support. Not going to blame publishers for the fact that consumers didn't care.

Boom Box? That's really the best you have? And using Tiger Woods in a TIGER WOODS GOLF GAME is more common sense than anything to do with the Wii. 3rd Parties put no effort into the Wii, and so they got nothing out. The ones who put the odd quality title like Monster Hunter 3 or Resident Evil 4 (Which sold over a million despite being released on a system which could already play the game!) got pretty decent sales.

 

[Baconsammy]

Boom Box? That's really the best you have? And using Tiger Woods in a TIGER WOODS GOLF GAME is more common sense than anything to do with the Wii. 3rd Parties put no effort into the Wii, and so they got nothing out. The ones who put the odd quality title like Monster Hunter 3 or Resident Evil 4 (Which sold over a million despite being released on a system which could already play the game!) got pretty decent sales.

So which is it, there was third party support or no third party support? I feel like we're getting mixed messages here. As for Boom Blox, those are the types of games that make a console, whether or not you can accept how much was spent to make the game. Viva Pinata, another small game with a large profile that helped the 360. Boom Blox was well received, well reviewed, and hyped a lot on podcasts and gaming sites. Suddenly that's not important. Does Zak and Wiki not count either?

Ubisoft put effort into the Wii. And they got Just Dance. Because there was an audience primed for Just Dance.

With ZombiU, AC3, Just Dance, and Legends, Ubisoft sure appeared to want to put a lot of support into the Wii U as well.