Support NeoGAF

[John Harker]

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:


Exactly.

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

Eh, we're talking math and ROI here... not series and fans.
Franchise sales, weight, brand recognition in this case... not a 1 or a 2 or a 3. It's content.

And it didn't have to move a lot of units to sell, and got an engine up and running, and allowed you to gain markestshare. and it still didn't do it. ZombieU can't even sell 150k and that's a good reviewing, great looking, original piece of content. People were losing with either approach... in this case, Ubi lost more since their investment was higher.

 

[OldKingDoran]

and nothing of value is lost

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

...what?

Your comment implies that the Wii U architecture is not more obtuse than the Wii, and it's the devs fault for "half assing" their efforts. To paraphrase, you're blaming them for not trying harder (i.e. Lazy Devs).

 

[StuBurns]

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.)

So you don't even think publishers should make Wii U SKUs, you believe publishers should be investing in exclusive Wii U games tailored to the audience? That's insane.

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.

Yes, the XBO doesn't need to nearly keep pace with PS4 in order to maintain support, because making an XBO SKU when you're making a PS4 one is not especially costly, the platform is viable regardless of it's relative performance.

Let's take Tomb Raider, a simple HD Remaster from the PS2 generation generally came in at around a million dollars to produce. How much would you imagine porting Tomb Raider, one of the most technologically impressive games of the entire generation, to a brand new platform with only comparable performance to it's last generation rivals? Five million? Six? Seven? Let's go with five as a hypothetical, lets assume a two million dollar marketing budget for the port (practically nothing), at which point, this port needs to sell 260k to break even. If it was your seven million, would you be confident you make enough of a return to justify that project?

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?

Blame is irrelevant, as is user expectations. Projections are all that matter, they are how these decisions are made. Publishers projected PS4 and XBO would be popular enough that combined with the PC, the three would form a comfortable technology baseline for all the next-gen engines to target.

The Wii U had to compete with all three combined, and it doesn't matter if that's 'fair' or not, and it doesn't matter if Sony or MS would have fared better in that situation or not, it's the practical reality the publishers faced.

I don't 'blame' Nintendo, the same way I don't blame Sony for fucking up the Vita, both companies faced extremely tough decisions, and personally, I think despite them both bombing, they actually each did what was the best for their awful situations. Personally, I would have not done the uPad and targeted a much lower entry cost, but no matter what was going to happen, the Wii U wasn't going to be supported like the others without being a comparable machine.

 

[SolidSnakex]

So si this worse than the Cube era , right ?

Significantly worse. The Gamecube still received EA sports games as well as many other third party games. The GC's support actually wasn't bad at all. It didn't receive games like GTA, MGS2, Silent Hill etc. but it still had pretty good third party support overall.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

I don't get why "Buy a console that has the games you want to play" warrants a "What the hell lol?"...but I guess this is GAF and not an actual person with the ability to reason.

Maybe I am misunderstanding but it seems like you think he bought the console mainly for third party support? As if the first parties dont justify the system already?

 

[Metallix87]

ZombieU can't even sell 150k and that's a good reviewing, great looking, original piece of content.

Let's not get carried away here. Zombi U is an extremely niche experience overall, as evidenced by it's 77 Metacritic rating and the fact that, at launch, you had major review outlets like Gamespot and IGN (arguably the two biggest review sites for games) trash the game.

 

[Goldenroad]

"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!"

I understand your stress over being ripped, but I'm just saying you could save yourself a lot of heartache and stress by just not caring about the fate of these companies so much. Nintendo and these publishers don't care about you, so I just think it's smart to no be so invested in them. Best of luck to you though man. I don't think you're gonna end up getting what you want from Ubisoft or other Western developers, but I hope you do.

 

[Goldenroad]

Maybe I am misunderstanding...

You are.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Eh, we're talking math and ROI here... not series and fans.
Franchise sales, weight, brand recognition in this case... not a 1 or a 2 or a 3. It's content.

And it didn't have to move a lot of units to sell, and got an engine up and running, and allowed you to gain markestshare. and it still didn't do it. ZombieU can't even sell 150k and that's a good reviewing, great looking, original piece of content. People were losing with either approach... in this case, Ubi lost more since their investment was higher.

Might want to remind yourself of those ZombiU reviews when they came in.

Your comment implies that the Wii U architecture is not more obtuse than the Wii, and it's the devs fault for "half assing" their efforts. To paraphrase, you're blaming them for not trying harder (i.e. Lazy Devs).

That's quite a reach there sonny.

I'm claiming if the WiiU is "unfamiliar architecture" it is because third parties did not get familiar with it previously - like on the Wii.

Because they didn't. Most publishers didn't release A team titles on the Wii, and consequently have a dearth of experience.

 

[John Harker]

Let's not get carried away here. Zombi U is an extremely niche experience overall, as evidenced by it's 77 Metacritic rating and the fact that, at launch, you had major review outlets like Gamespot and IGN (arguably the two biggest review sites for games) trash the game.

Call of Duty Ghosts as a 71 Metacritic, i guess that sells pretty well for a niche experience

 

[PlumCantaloupe]

Sad but that is the way it is. I think Nintendo has the right idea partnering with assorted third parties where they can.

I thought Rayman Legends sold best on WiiU though? I am curious how Child of Light will do.

In any case it is hard to care too much. The "AAA" games industry just doesn't interest me too much with their sloppy ports and tired mechanics that rely far too heavily on violence and player ignorance.

How much to bet Watch Dogs isn't coming out for WiiU?

Edit: I do think Ubisoft did a good job on ZombieU. It really needed online multiplayer though.

 

[catmario]

UBISOFT did a best job as they could as possible.

Many people may not blame to ubi, and nintendo only gamers will admit this truth.

This is sad reality.

 

[Metallix87]

Call of Duty Ghosts as a 71 Metacritic, i guess that sells pretty well for a niche experience

Are you really comparing an established franchise like Call of Duty to a new IP like Zombi U?

 

[openrob]

Also - Do companies ever release data for pre orders.

I would like to know how many Wii U owners cancelled their pre order for Rayman and Watch Dogs when announcements were made.

 

[NotLiquid]

Call of Duty Ghosts as a 71 Metacritic, i guess that sells pretty well for a niche experience

I'm not sure whether comparing a tried and true blockbuster franchise (particularly not using the platform versions that rated higher and sold more) to a niche, unproven new investment is that apt of a comparison.

 

[maxiell]

Let's not get carried away here. Zombi U is an extremely niche experience overall, as evidenced by it's 77 Metacritic rating and the fact that, at launch, you had major review outlets like Gamespot and IGN (arguably the two biggest review sites for games) trash the game.

That would put it in the top echelon of current gen games on Metacritic.

It was an original experience which used the console's defining feature. No one bought it. Zombies are the opposite of niche; they are entirely mainstream.

Rayman bombed on every platform.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

You are.

Well it should be reworded then, originally didnt make sense

 

[Metallix87]

That would put it in the top echelon of current gen games on Metacritic.

It was an original experience which used the console's defining feature. No one bought it. Zombies are the opposite of niche; they are entirely mainstream.

Zombies may be the opposite of niche, but a mix of survival horror and Dark Souls-esque difficulty is definitely niche.

 

[jimi_dini]

Zombies are the opposite of niche; they are entirely mainstream.

Actual survival horror is the opposite of mainstream. (fuck you mainstream)

As if the game would have sold way more on PS3 or 360. I bet it would have sold even less (percentage wise). On PS4 or Bone it surely would have sold less than 150k. The audience is just not there anymore.

 

[Discomurf]

Cant really blame them, Ubi gave more of an effort then most. And yes, Nintendo is to blame. I mean if you think about it the last truly friendly third-party console was the SNES.

N64 = cart limitations and higher development costs
Gamecube = smaller disc limitations, no online
Wii = hardware limitations (previous gen tech, no HD)
Wii U = hardware limitations (limited CPU and Ram, Gamepad lacking multi-touch)


...and that was just part of the problem.

 

[MDX]

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.

Why do you think sales are weak for the WiiU in western markets?
No, its not a conspiracy... that's how your brain works- Its business.

Why do you think these companies pay millions for exclusive DLC,
advertising, launch dates? What do you think it pays for?
Its to make the other companies or their products look irrelevant.
You don't think for a big show like E3 Sony or MS haven't made
deals with publishers to have exclusive reveals for multi-plat games?

 

[MrSaturn99]

Another nail in Wii U's coffin.

Also, NWR's banned? I always loved that site.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Prince of Persia: Rayman Edition to be a digital-only PS3/PS4/360/Xbone/PC/

Spoiler

Vita

exclusive confirmed

 

[John Harker]

Are you really comparing an established franchise like Call of Duty to a new IP like Zombi U?

I was making a joke.

Though I was also trying to show you how you're whole statement was based on a silly premise, that a metacritic score is what determines if a title is niche or not.

And that metacritic scores are even the reason a launch title is a hit or not.

 

[Metallix87]

Though I was also trying to show you how you're whole statement was based on a silly premise, that a metacritic score is what determines if a title is niche or not.

That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying it was a niche title that also happened to have been hammered by reviews, specifically those from the two biggest review outlets, and thus not the "highly rated gem" you implied it was.

 

[Petrae]

Why do you think sales are weak for the WiiU in western markets?
No, its not a conspiracy... that's how your brain works- Its business.

Why do you think these companies pay millions for exclusive DLC,
advertising, launch dates? What do you think it pays for?
Its to make the other companies or their products look irrelevant.
You don't think for a big show like E3 Sony or MS haven't made
deals with publishers to have exclusive reveals for multi-plat games?

I don't see what MS and/or Sony would have to gain by telling Ubisoft not to showcase games that aren't going to sell anyway. Nintendo did a good enough job sinking its own ship with lackluster marketing and a self-inflicted identity crisis (What's a WiiU? A tablet for my Wii?) that the competition could disregard Nintendo as a credible threat.

I can see money being thrown around by Sony or MS to upstage the other at E3, because there's so much at stake for both companies, but not towards publishers to stick it to Nintendo.

 

[Cbajd5]

Another nail in Wii U's coffin.

Also, NWR's banned? I always loved that site.

Nah, if it was the whole name would be *'d out, only rt . com (which is its own website) is.

 

[odhiex]

I still assuming that there are some of Nintendo games in developments made by the Ubisoft (like Just dance, Rabbids, etc)


However, they may not want/bother to bring/show/promote them at E3 in a big way... Why would they? Heck, even Nintendo are no longer promoting them, as they used to, at E3.

a.k.a. No Nintendo traditional press conference again this year, let's do the digital event instead with in house games and Japanese 3rd party games.

It may sounds like a protest by a big western publisher, but does Nintendo ever listening ? Do they want to wait until the Activision make their statement as well?

Well, CEO Bobby Kotick did criticised the Sony's ps3 pricing once. He even warned Sony that they would stop their support for any future PS3 games, if they are keep selling poorly in the platform. Fortunately, ps3 have gotten better with the slim and cheaper version.

 

[prag16]

Eh, we're talking math and ROI here... not series and fans.
Franchise sales, weight, brand recognition in this case... not a 1 or a 2 or a 3. It's content.

And it didn't have to move a lot of units to sell, and got an engine up and running, and allowed you to gain markestshare. and it still didn't do it. ZombieU can't even sell 150k and that's a good reviewing, great looking, original piece of content. People were losing with either approach... in this case, Ubi lost more since their investment was higher.

Are you talking about closer to launch, or are you saying that ZombiU STILL hasn't hit 150k LTD (for NPD)? Even heavily discounted for many months? If so... yikes.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

That would put it in the top echelon of current gen games on Metacritic.

It was an original experience which used the console's defining feature. No one bought it. Zombies are the opposite of niche; they are entirely mainstream.

Rayman bombed on every platform.

Zombie first person shooters are niche on Nintendo platforms, just like colorful platformers are niche on SONY platforms. I don't know what you're trying to argue.
If Ubisoft(and Nintendo)was smart Zombie U would have been an accessible co-op 2D platforming Contra-like game. I'd bet my bottom dollar that it would have done better in that form.

Despite Rayman bombing, it still sold better on the WiiU. :/
WiiU owners don't want games aimed at young men, and that's Ubi's bread and butter.
They're not going to support a platform which isn't conducive to that.

 

[StuBurns]

Zombie first person shooters are niche on Nintendo platforms, just like colorful platformers are niche on SONY platforms. I don't know what you're trying to argue.
If Ubisoft(and Nintendo)was smart Zombie U would have been an accessible co-op 2D platforming Contra-like game. I'd bet my bottom dollar that it would have done better in that form.

This stereotyping is really what limits a platform. Audiences are diverse, as much as an average PS3 owner might want zombie action games, there are also millions of LBP players. I love that Ubi took a gamble on ZombiU, it's an interesting concept, and maybe Ubi weren't happy with the sales, but they were respectable for a third party original IP at the launch of a Nintendo platform.

 

[mktrOOp]

Therefore I won't buy any games from Ubisoft this year. It's as simple as that.

Spoiler

I wouldn't buy Ubisoft games anyway because they suck imo.

 

[John Harker]

Are you talking about closer to launch, or are you saying that ZombiU STILL hasn't hit 150k LTD (for NPD)? Even heavily discounted for many months? If so... yikes.

non-franchised don't really sell after like, the 3rd month.... you'd be heart broken to see how few wii u games have even hit 150k.

 

[Dinstruction]

If Nintendo made a console that was on par with the PS4 and Xbox One, with fully functioning online capabilities and third party support, they would easily stomp the competition.

I think Nintendo realizes this, but they don't care.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

This stereotyping is really what limits a platform. Audiences are diverse, as much as an average PS3 owner might want zombie action games, there are also millions of LBP players. I love that Ubi took a gamble on ZombiU, it's an interesting concept, and maybe Ubi weren't happy with the sales, but they were respectable for a third party original IP at the launch of a Nintendo platform.

LBP is a huge exception to the rule.
Most games like that didn't do very well on PS3 at all. You have to come to terms with the fact that these companies have a specific audience that they're trying to attract. There is reason why SONY didn't back SM3DW caliber retail platformers on the PS3 the way that they backed stuff like Killzone.
The young western male/"hardcore" market isn't really interested in those kinds of games. They want sports games, shooting games, and WRPGs.
Nintendo's audience(even the limited WiiU one)doesn't want to play games aimed at young men. They want "Nintendo-like" experiences.

If Nintendo made a console that was on par with the PS4 and Xbox One, with fully functioning online capabilities and third party support, they would easily stomp the competition.

I think Nintendo realizes this, but they don't care.

Nope, it doesn't really work like that.

 

[Dinstruction]

Nope, it doesn't really work like that.

Why not? They have the strongest first party franchises of the three console manufacturers.

That's somewhat of an arrogant response, to be honest.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Nintendo's audience(even the limited WiiU one)doesn't want to play games aimed at young men. They want "Nintendo-like" experiences.

So more NSMBU and less Wonderful 101.

 

[jholmes]

I have a few Ubisoft games on Wii U, and they were all great games, but I would also say the company didn't do the best job it could've done selling the three. (Zombi U was really lacking in polish and marketing, Cloudberry Kingdom still doesn't have leaderboards despite the Wii U being the lead platform, and we all know about Rayman Legends.)

I'll get Watch Dogs and if that's all they want to sell me on the platform, that's their choice. But I'm a little tired of this industry consistently blaming the consumers for not buying their products. (In Ubisoft's defence they haven't said this, but people are reading between the lines on this, and not unfairly.)

Besides, blame Wii U sales all you want, but they're also abandoning the 3DS.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

If Nintendo made a console that was on par with the PS4 and Xbox One, with fully functioning online capabilities and third party support, they would easily stomp the competition.

I think Nintendo realizes this, but they don't care.

They don't realize it because it's not true.

 

[SmokedMeat]

If Nintendo made a console that was on par with the PS4 and Xbox One, with fully functioning online capabilities and third party support, they would easily stomp the competition.

I think Nintendo realizes this, but they don't care.

Yeah, they know they have the ticket to an easy win, but they and their shareholders would rather get stomped into irrelevance.

Makes sense.

 

[Quadraphonic]

If Nintendo made a console that was on par with the PS4 and Xbox One, with fully functioning online capabilities and third party support, they would easily stomp the competition.

I think Nintendo realizes this, but they don't care.

They launched a console without any way to buy DLC until 6 months after launch.

There's no way they can fucking design a capable operating system to remain competitive.

 

[StuBurns]

LBP is a huge exception to the rule.
Most games like that didn't do very well on PS3 at all. You have to come to terms with the fact that these companies have a specific audience that they're trying to attract. There is reason why SONY didn't back SM3DW caliber retail platformers on the PS3 the way that they backed stuff like Killzone.
The young western male/"hardcore" market isn't really interested in those kinds of games. They want sports games, shooting games, and WRPGs.
Nintendo's audience(even the limited WiiU one)doesn't want to play games aimed at young men. They want "Nintendo-like" experiences.

I completely disagree both with your opinion of Sony's projects and the response to them. Sony funded a number of major 3D platformers last generation, a few R&Cs and Sly 4, none of them sold very well, but neither did lots of Sony's shooters either.

The PS360 audience never had access to a 3D platformer of Mario quality, so we really have no idea what it would have sold.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Why not? They have the strongest first party franchises of the three console manufacturers.

That's somewhat of an arrogant response, to be honest.

Doesn't matter. Making a console on par with the other guys doesn't guarantee third party success. Especially when the demographic for shooters, and WRPGs aren't there.
Despite what you might think, Nintendo's sacred cows aren't cherished by young men who play CoD, and Skyrim. I don't understand how their first party games would be a factor in getting them on Nintendo's console.

Nintendo would have to change the kind of content they produce to encourage third parties to even consider putting stuff like "Batman Arkham Knight" on their platform.

So more NSMBU and less Wonderful 101.

Yep.
More Kart racers, 2D/3D platformers, Zelda-like games, and mini game collections.
Those do really well on Nintendo platforms, even the WiiU.
Nintendo should have had this philosophy from the start. Backing something like Zomibe U or Darksiders was not a very smart idea on their part. :/

Edit:

I completely disagree both with your opinion of Sony's projects and the response to them. Sony funded a number of major 3D platformers last generation, a few R&Cs and Sly 4, none of them sold very well, but neither did lots of Sony's shooters either.

The PS360 audience never had access to a 3D platformer of Mario quality, so we really have no idea what it would have sold.

A lot more of those shooters they funded did better than any of the 3D platformers they funded.
Also LBP was pretty damn good, and did very well yet it failed to create a healthy ecosystem for those kinds of games on the PS3.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

How the mighty have fallen.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Why do people always talk about Mass Effect 3 as if it was the only game that bombed on the system?

You make games that fit the tastes of the audience. You don't try to force your tastes down the audience's throat.

It's the other way around. They're third parties. Free agents. They make the games they make. If you show you've built an audience for that content then it will go to said platform.

If you show there's a lucrative audience then third parties will try to sell to it. There isn't one on the Wii U to justify much.

 

[Dinstruction]

Doesn't matter. Making a console on par with the other guys doesn't guarantee third party success. Especially when the demographic for shooters, and WRPGs aren't there.
Despite what you might think, Nintendo's sacred cows aren't cherished by young men who play CoD, and Skyrim. I don't understand how their first party games would be a factor in getting them on Nintendo's console.

Nintendo would have to change the kind of content they produce to encourage third parties to even consider putting stuff like "Batman Arkham Knight" on their platform.

The actual content produced by the console manufacturer is irrelevant. All that matters is that the content is popular enough to drive further sales of the console, creating an audience for third parties to develop games for.

Mario, Zelda, and the like have the potential to popular enough, but the console itself doesn't have the capabilities to compete.

Yeah, they know they have the ticket to an easy win, but they and their shareholders would rather get stomped into irrelevance.

Makes sense.

Despite how we paint them as a failing company, they aren't getting "stomped into irrelevance." They're quite well-off thanks to the Wii and DS, and are currently resting on their laurels.

It's more about the cost of creating a console that can compete. And not the financial cost, because Nintendo has that covered. It's the cost of time and manpower. Since Nintendo has enough money to rest easy for the next decade or two, it's easier for them to maintain their current strategy.

 

[block tower]

back during the NES days, Nintendo muscled retailers, publishers, and even competitors to go along with how Nintendo did business in the gaming industry. decades later and the roles really have reversed lol.

Despite how we paint them as a failing company, they aren't getting "stomped into irrelevance." They're quite well-off thanks to the Wii and DS, and are currently resting on their laurels.

It's more about the cost of creating a console that can compete. And not the financial cost, because Nintendo has that covered. It's the cost of time and manpower. Since Nintendo has enough money to rest easy for the next decade or two, it's easier for them to maintain their current strategy.

while Nintendo may have money in the bank and lots of it, they are in fact being stomped into irrelevance, besides the Wii and DS, most Nintendo consoles and handhelds have been loosing massive market share and putting up sub-par sales. regardless of if poor selling consoles like N64, GameCube, and Wii U are profitable, they certainly aren't making Nintendo tons of money, nor are they taking up market-share and mind-share within the gaming industry.

picks a chart any chart: http://www.statista.com/chartoftheday/nintendo/

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Despite how we paint them as a failing company, they aren't getting "stomped into irrelevance." They're quite well-off thanks to the Wii and DS, and are currently resting on their laurels.

It's more about the cost of creating a console that can compete. And not the financial cost, because Nintendo has that covered. It's the cost of time and manpower. Since Nintendo has enough money to rest easy for the next decade or two, it's easier for them to maintain their current strategy.

You're incredibly clueless if you actually think this.
It doesn't matter if they make a console on par with their indirect competition if they don't have a healthy ecosystem to support the kind of games 3rd party developers produce.
Just because they have the ability to produce a PS4 powered console doesn't mean they'll dominate the market.

 

[metalslimer]

People can bitch and moan about 3rd parties, but after how Nintendo completely failed with the Wii to secure 3rd parties and thus build an audience there was no way in hell the Wii U was ever going to be able to build a good market for the games 3rd parties are making. It would have taken the unanimous support of every 3rd party, and why in the world would they care about a continually shrinking Nintendo console fanbase.