Maybe publishers should try putting some *gasp* new games on the system.
Sure, after all the sale numbers for those 3rd party games were so marvelous that publisher are lining up to put their new game on Wii U.
Oh wait...
Maybe publishers should try putting some *gasp* new games on the system.
If adding bloom, making the boat faster, putting message board posts in bottles for you to find and putting the tri force pieces in the locations where the charts were makes it a remake, then that's pretty sad for the standards of what a remake is. Sounds more like an old port.Yeah, it's an exclusive remake. Not an old port.
It's the Wii U owners, man!I'm sure it was a good idea to release a nearly 1 year late port of a nearly 7 years old game.
maybe a little of both. the floor for the tales series is about 40k (tales of the world for the psp). the tales games on the psx did about 60k each. symphonia was a huge outlier nearing 500k. everything except symphonia 2 and vesperia has been under 100k.
If adding bloom, making the boat faster, putting message board posts in bottles for you to find and putting the tri force pieces in the locations where the charts were makes it a remake, then that's pretty sad for the standards of what a remake is. Sounds more like an old port.
The 3rd party games on the system have by and large been so poor of efforts they're lucky anyone bought them at all. Or have you missed the threads since Wii U launch where most launch titles, including CoD, removed pre-order bonuses, removed DLC, were months to year late ports selling full price against better performing versions on other consoles, etc.Sure, after all the sale numbers for those 3rd party games were so marvelous that publisher are lining up to put their new game on Wii U.
Oh wait...
Sure, after all the sale numbers for those 3rd party games were so marvelous that publisher are lining up to put their new game on Wii U.
Oh wait...
This video has at least 2 times more views then the game sales!Sorry couldn't resist
I wonder what Sega now thinks of Sonic exclusive on WiiU .
Here's the problem though: if Wii U owners don't buy those ports, it shows third parties that there isn't an audience for those types of game on the console. This means that there's no point putting in any effort to achieving parity with the other versions, as they won't see any return on the investment. I don't think having timely and feature complete Wii U versions would have had any impact on the sales of those games overall.Except for Zombi U and Lego City, third party games on Wii U have doomed themselves. Old ports like Mass Effect 3 for full price when the whole trilogy gets released on the other consoles at the same time for the same price, Batman for full price when I could have picked it up on PS3 for 20 bucks a year ago, Need for Speed months later and a lot more expensive than the other versions, missing modes and DLC etc.. You'd have to be dumb to buy those games. I'm not saying that the sales and the audience of the Wii U didn't have an impact on the failure of those titles, but there were failures from the start.
What you're saying is that there is an entry fee of buying shitty games before a userbase can expect good games. What you're saying is that it is Wii U owners' fault that third parties are putting out bad games and it will be Wii U owners' fault that they continue to get bad games because they didn't buy other bad games.Here's the problem though: if Wii U owners don't buy those ports, it shows third parties that there isn't an audience for those types of game on the console. This means that there's no point putting in any effort to achieving parity with the other versions, as they won't see any return on the investment. I don't think having timely and feature complete Wii U versions would have had any impact on the sales of those games overall.
Pretty much this. No developer wants to invest on the Wii U, resulting on ports, but on the other hand Wii U owners don't want ports, resulting in shitty sales.Well, since the Wii U isn't exactly the hottest console on the market, combined with the fact that the vast majority of people that wanted to play this already picked it up on the ps3, I'm not really that blown away by this.
While its good that Nintendo are releasing third party games on the Wii U, merely doing ports is not going to cut it for them. When it all boils down to it, the Wii U really is a flawed console. Most publishers are not going to waste money specifically developing games for the console, since it requires to take the questionable gamepad into consideration, as well as the fact that the userbase is much smaller than what it is for the Xbox and the PlayStation. There's no incentive present.
It's a catch-22. Nintendo has boxed themselves in a corner with the Wii U. The lack of revenue stream as well as the fact that they're already losing money on the console is the reason why we haven't seen any major system selling first party games already. As for most publishers, they're not spending money if they aren't getting any, so the status quo will remain.
So yeah, not surprising. What will surprise me is how they turn this around, since it's a rather complex situation they're stuck in. The odds aren't exactly looking up though...
A port of two ancient PS2 games didn't sell?
I for one am shocked.
PS3 at the start of this generation got plenty of bad and late ports, the sales of which were good enough that publishers started treating it equally to the 360. Plenty of games are ported to the PC late, such as Dark Souls and Mortal Kombat, and they still manage to perform above expectations. Why should Wii U owners be any different? Maybe the market for these games just isn't there.What you're saying is that there is an entry fee of buying shitty games before a userbase can expect good games. What you're saying is that it is Wii U owners' fault that third parties are putting out bad games and it will be Wii U owners' fault that they continue to get bad games because they didn't buy other bad games.
I'm sure the Wii U versions would have sold more if they were at parity, but at the expense of the other versions selling less. For third parties, it really boils down to: how many people will buy the Wii U version that wouldn't have bought one of the other versions it the Wii U version didn't exist? In all the cases so far, it looks like there aren't many.And you're also saying that Wii U owners would just as soon buy a terrible port as a day one multiplat with feature parity.
Here's the problem though: if Wii U owners don't buy those ports, it shows third parties that there isn't an audience for those types of game on the console. This means that there's no point putting in any effort to achieving parity with the other versions, as they won't see any return on the investment. I don't think having timely and feature complete Wii U versions would have had any impact on the sales of those games overall.
I'm a wii u owner and I wouldn't have bought this. Sega, I don't want ps2 ports.
I'm a wii u owner and I wouldn't have bought this. Sega, I don't want ps2 ports.
PS3 at the start of this generation got plenty of bad and late ports, the sales of which were good enough that publishers started treating it equally to the 360. Plenty of games are ported to the PC late, such as Dark Souls and Mortal Kombat, and they still manage to perform above expectations. Why should Wii U owners be any different? Maybe the market for these games just isn't there.
Well surely some PS3 owners did want them, so we can't blame SEGA for their console choices anymore, eh?
Look at the size and breadth of the libraries for those two systems and you'll get the idea.So its easier to sell bad games/port to PS3 or 360 owners, somehow I don't see the good in that scenario.
There are many reasons that can be listed as to why 360 users and PS3 users might have been content to pay full price for worse versions of older games.PS3 at the start of this generation got plenty of bad and late ports, the sales of which were good enough that publishers started treating it equally to the 360. Plenty of games are ported to the PC late, such as Dark Souls and Mortal Kombat, and they still manage to perform above expectations. Why should Wii U owners be any different? Maybe the market for these games just isn't there.
I'm sure the Wii U versions would have sold more if they were at parity, but at the expense of the other versions selling less. For third parties, it really boils down to: how many people will buy the Wii U version that wouldn't have bought one of the other versions it the Wii U version didn't exist? In all the cases so far, it looks like there aren't many.
So its easier to sell bad games/port to PS3 or 360 owners, somehow I don't see the good in that scenario.
It's the Wii U owners, man!
Those dastardly Wii U owners. Real hardcore gamers don't own multiple consoles and love to buy year late ports of 7 year old games!
Hey Sega Aholes, Valkyria Chronicles 3 would sell more than that if you would localize it and just put it on psn.
Here's the problem though: if Wii U owners don't buy those ports, it shows third parties that there isn't an audience for those types of game on the console. This means that there's no point putting in any effort to achieving parity with the other versions, as they won't see any return on the investment. I don't think having timely and feature complete Wii U versions would have had any impact on the sales of those games overall.
I wasn't responding to your subsequent post, I was responding to that one. And in that one you say WiiU owners want new games. Wind Waker is not a new game, so in context of what you said, the question is fair. Taking me to task for not keeping in mind a further post you made that I freely admit overlooking is pointless, as is the snarky implication that it was on purpose. It would be more to the point to let me know rather than take me over the coals for it.I like how you just ignored my point about all those games being available on other systems for years.
I didn't know Wind Waker HD was released a year ago on PS3. Or that it's a port of a port. Or that Yakuza had anywhere near the same brand power as Zelda. Totally comparable games ;-) You learn something new everyday.
I don't doubt it will appeal to Nintendo fans, I doubt its appeal to the broader market -- people who haven't picked up a WiiU yet. Selling to customers who already have your system defeats the propose of or being a system seller, i.e. a way to bring new people on board.It's a zelda game, nintendo fans will go crazy for any nintendo game at this point, it's going to sell decently at least.
Yakuza HD is not simply an old port, AFAIK, they are remastered games. Unless you're only speaking to it being an old port on terms of it being on PS3 first, in which case it ignores what the games are or any work that went into them. It's unfairly reductionist.Yeah, it's an exclusive remake. Not an old port.
If I had money to just throw away on shitty no-effort ports for the Wii U, I still wouldn't do that. I don't think most people really believe anyone ought to have this worshipful "throw me any bone you can spare for x console because I love it so much" mentality either.Look at the size and breadth of the libraries for those two systems and you'll get the idea.
I'll buy any old reheated turd for the Vita if it increases the chances of seeing more support.
Not surprising as with how the Wii U isnt exactly doing gangbusters domestically anyways.