Support NeoGAF

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

So you think it's impossible to form opinions on and discuss future potential outcomes informed by currently available information. Okay.

No

 

[shinra-bansho]

No

Then what exactly is your issue with my stating of an opinion of what may occur in future? You're welcome to offer counterpoint if you have one.

Publishers are currently continuing to make PS3 and 360 SKUs for games that they're making for next-gen. The 150M combined installed base of these systems provides something of a safety-net for next gen productions.

In some instances (Watch_Dogs, Black Flag, Arkham Origins), but not others (Destiny, Battlefield 4), the Wii U is the benefactor of this decision, as some of these publishers will decide the return on a port of the 360 SKU to the Wii U is worth the monetary investment and opportunity cost in terms of resources.

The point at which PS3 and 360 SKUs stop being viable or worthwhile as part of publishing plans, however, is the point at which the Wii U must, in and of itself, justify some sort of downport from the much more powerful PS4/Durango.

And there's nothing to suggest that it will justify such investment at this time. Some can't justify even porting their engine technology, let alone games. And for many publishers, they can't even justify a Wii U port of their current gen PS3/360 titles. See: this thread.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Which again begs the question: why produce Wii U SKUs at all, when it doesn't reach an increased audience?

I would say why produce Wii U SKUs for year-old games? No reason to port old games over. But the next gen is starting. No excuse to not bring new games to the Wii U because data from re-releasing old games doesn't show an audience. If the PS4 launches with a lazy port of Uncharted 3, no one is going to buy it. We can just as easily say "why make PS4 or 720 SKUs when they also won't be reaching an increased audience?"

The total number of sales are not necessarily growing with new consoles, imo. While the industry would love to bring in more total customers, new consoles are about providing experiences unavailable on the old ones.

That is why you make a Wii U SKU. That is why you make a PS4 SKU. Etc. Etc.

 

[ahm998]

Man, it is bad when I find myself saying "I didn't buy my Wii U for 3rd party games", when really, it should be just as capable as the 360/PS3 when it comes to getting support.


But with how badly some companies have been financially, I understand it might not make much sense to stretch your resources and budget out to port to a 3rd system, which has only been out for 6months and has a fairly weak install base.

I think the recent report from Square definitely sheds some light on the problem, when Hitman Absolution sells 3.6 million, and Tomb Raider 3.4 million, and yet they still miss expectations.

PS360 install base more than 60m and these games only sell less than 4 million.

Wii U install base less than 4 million and they didn't even try to sell 100-400K it's enough.

But 3rd party company so greedy to get more sells.

 

[zoukka]

It's one thing for devs to comment why they aren't porting game x to Wii U, but all this talk of not developing for it at all is pretty horrible for Nintendo.

Then again, if somehow the platform would gain considerable gas, these guys would jump back in.

 

[ultrazilla]

Anyone have an official or semi-official list of third party companies
who are actually developing WiiU games?

When you have third parties basically giving up/not doing games for the
WiiU only 6 months into launch.....it's not looking good at all.

 

[Roo]

Then what exactly is your issue with my stating of an opinion of what may occur in future? You're welcome to offer counterpoint if you have one.

Publishers are currently continuing to make PS3 and 360 SKUs for games that they're making for next-gen. The 150M combined installed base of these systems provides something of a safety-net for next gen productions.

In some instances (Watch_Dogs, Black Flag, Arkham Origins), but not others (Destiny, Battlefield 4), the Wii U is the benefactor of this decision, as some of these publishers will decide the return on a port of the 360 SKU to the Wii U is worth the monetary investment and opportunity cost in terms of resources.

The point at which PS3 and 360 SKUs stop being viable or worthwhile as part of publishing plans, however, is the point at which the Wii U must, in and of itself, justify some sort of downport from the much more powerful PS4/Durango.

And there's nothing to suggest that it will justify such investment at this time. Some can't justify even porting their engine technology, let alone games. And for many publishers, they can't even justify a Wii U port of their current gen PS3/360 titles. See: this thread.

A lot of developers don't see the Wii U as a viable platform (right now) because its userbase is way too small to justify the money that has to be spent and the work that has to be done.
I'm not defending their current position, because Nintendo is the only one to blame, but by using your logic, when third parties are done with PS360 and are more than ready to move on to PS4/720, Wii U's userbase theorically should be big enough to at least try to port the games.

 

[ultrazilla]

It's one thing for devs to comment why they aren't porting game x to Wii U, but all this talk of not developing for it at all is pretty horrible for Nintendo.

Then again, if somehow the platform would gain considerable gas, these guys would jump back in.

Yeah, I'm hoping for a 3ds type take-off.

 

[Bsigg12]

It's one thing for devs to comment why they aren't porting game x to Wii U, but all this talk of not developing for it at all is pretty horrible for Nintendo.

Then again, if somehow the platform would gain considerable gas, these guys would jump back in.

Well, yea. Right now its not financially viable to develop for Wii U because they can't guarantee even getting back to even with that version. Smaller companies will not risk just blowing money on a system that does not have any kind of light in the future. It's sad.

 

[stryke]

A lot of developers don't see the Wii U as a viable platform (right now) because its userbase is way too small to justify the money that has to be spent and the work that has to be done.
I'm not defending their current position, because Nintendo is the only one to blame, but by using your logic, when third parties are done with PS360 and are more than ready to move on to PS4/720, Wii U's userbase theorically should be big enough to at least try to port the games.

You're forgetting his point that when PS4/720 become the new baseline, the increased WiiU userbase becomes a moot point since in publishers'/developers' eyes, it's seems no longer worth the effort for a downport.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I would say why produce Wii U SKUs for year-old games? No reason to port old games over. But the next gen is starting. No excuse to not bring new games to the Wii U because data from re-releasing old games doesn't show an audience. If the PS4 launches with a lazy port of Uncharted 3, no one is going to buy it. We can just as easily say "why make PS4 or 720 SKUs when they also won't be reaching an increased audience?"

The total number of sales are not necessarily growing with new consoles, imo. While the industry would love to bring in more total customers, new consoles are about providing experiences unavailable on the old ones.

That is why you make a Wii U SKU. That is why you make a PS4 SKU. Etc. Etc.

Why are publishers making new games for the PS4 and, while it doesn't publicly exist yet, Durango? Because they expect transition. They expect current gen owners to want to upgrade. Because an actual upgrade is on offer for people who own a PS3 or 360. And they want this new generation to reinvigorate a market with systems that have grown very long-in-the-tooth.

They don't see such transition occurring from those systems to the Wii U. Because it doesn't offer a substantial upgrade. And they're right, because those people aren't transitioning.

But perhaps, if it was attracting people who didn't already have a PS3 or 360, the Wii-only owner or new audiences in general to the market, then there'd be a new audience to tap into there. Except it isn't.

It's simply attracting Nintendo's faithful core following.

when third parties are done with PS360 and are more than ready to move on to PS4/720, Wii U's userbase theorically should be big enough to at least try to port the games.

They're already in the process of moving on. Publishers are all-in on the next gen, performance-wise, systems. Some degree of cross-gen doesn't mean that internally resources aren't being moved on, PS2 SKUs continued to be in development for years too.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

It´s so funny that some Nintendo fans always say in these threads nothing was lost, yet in the Nintendo should not put Wario in western markets gets the response that Nintendo needs games, even shit games like Wario. That shit games are better than no games. FUNNY.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Who is this Audience that is not for them? They realize most early adopters of consoles arent casuals, right?

Yeah, but that sure didn't help the sales of most of the WII U launch games. I really doubt any of their games/game would appeal to the Wii fanbase.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Then what exactly is your issue with my stating of an opinion of what may occur in future? You're welcome to offer counterpoint if you have one.

Publishers are currently continuing to make PS3 and 360 SKUs for games that they're making for next-gen. The 150M combined installed base of these systems provides something of a safety-net for next gen productions.

In some instances (Watch_Dogs, Black Flag, Arkham Origins), but not others (Destiny, Battlefield 4), the Wii U is the benefactor of this decision, as some of these publishers will decide the return on a port of the 360 SKU to the Wii U is worth the monetary investment and opportunity cost in terms of resources.

The point at which PS3 and 360 SKUs stop being viable or worthwhile as part of publishing plans, however, is the point at which the Wii U must, in and of itself, justify some sort of downport from the much more powerful PS4/Durango.

And there's nothing to suggest that it will justify such investment at this time. Some can't justify even porting their engine technology, let alone games. And for many publishers, they can't even justify a Wii U port of their current gen PS3/360 titles. See: this thread.

You talk as if they are facts, when they're yet to be proven. If it was that easy then I could be debating endlessly on infinite possible outcomes.

 

[shinra-bansho]

You talk as if they are facts, when they're yet to be proven. If it was that easy then I could be debating endlessly on infinite possible outcomes.

I don't see the need to put IMO at the end of every sentence on a message board. It's a message board. If I was sharing a fact, I'd provide a citation. Equating all possibilities as being plausibilities based on current information is false equivalency. If you have an opinion of a plausible contrary outcome informed by reasoned analysis of the current situation then feel free to share it.

 

[xandaca]

A pretty bad indictment of where Nintendo is at with the Wii U, but at least the guy is honest. I'd rather people just come out and tell the truth rather than all the 'we love the console but our games don't suit its unique features' bollocks. There's no disguising that hardware and software numbers for Wii U have been abominable since the New Year (and in the latter case, pretty terrible since launch) and if more developers are willing to come out and admit why they aren't porting their games to the console, hopefully it'll give Nintendo the kick up the arse they so badly need to reverse the situation.

 

[SMD]

It's nonsense. They aren't scared of Halo when they release FPS on the XBOX. They aren't scared of GT when they release racers on PlayStation. They aren't scared of Mario when they release platformers on the Wii. The platform holder sets the tone of the system, their software helps to cultivate an audience. Nintendo have made no substantial effort to do so on the Wii U, from the hardware design, to the software releases, to the branding and positioning.

Microsoft and Sony don't have such a powerful first party library though. The FPS genre is a bad choice because prior to this generation, it wasn't as big a seller as a market on console. Same with racing sims, aside from Forza and Gran Turismo, I can't think of a really big console seller in that area.

Nintendo sell platformers, party games, adventure games, RPGs of differing variety, they sell casual games and some sport games. These titles all tend to sell well and third parties struggle to get a foot in when it comes to them. Look at the kart racer genre, Mario Kart pretty much has it on lockdown and it's only been Sega who have managed to create something that holds its own. Up until the PS1 era you used to get kart racers across all formats and from almost every publisher.

I'm not suggesting that Nintendo are perfect and let the weak cower at their feet. I'm just saying that Nintendo are a hardware manufacturer but also a big software producer - and they sell in big amounts. You think companies like EA like dealing with them when they get Sony and Microsoft sucking them off for their sports franchises, their racing games and Battlefield? That's one of the reasons that major publishers are scrabbling around trying to get mobile gaming to work for them. It allows them to come back and try and grab the casual gamer without having to deal with the Nintendo userbase.

If the new Xbox rumours are true then publishers will be overjoyed, it'd be all their Christmases at once. They couldn't give two fuckers you can't trade in your games or don't actually physically own them any more, or that Microsoft are trying to muscle in on your living room. That works for them, the more exposure MS have in your life, the more they can piggy back on that. Same with Sony.

Whereas Nintendo has...Miiverse. Which is in an ecosystem that favours their games. Maybe developers like it but as far as publishers go, their money is on Microsoft and Sony because that's what makes sense for them.

Forgive me if I'm not remembering, but what new marketing did Nintendo employ to differentiate between the DS and 3DS? I thought the revitalization was simply due to them desperately slashing ~1/3 of the price off before the handheld's 6 month anniversary...

At first Nintendo were pushing the 3D glasses-free gaming angle but once they cut the price and had more games on the system, they started talking about the power of the machine and even had ads that explicitly said "this isn't DS, this is 3DS".

 

[Tobor]

Yeah, I'm hoping for a 3ds type take-off.

When is the huge price drop coming?

 

[Mithos]

When is the huge price drop coming?

I wonder..

Wii U have dropped in price ~1000SEK (~$150/~€120) since release without an official price drop.

 

[jmood88]

Truth. Third-parties seems to be in a process of "freeze out" on Nintendo. It has been like this ever since the GCN. They try to find whatever excuse they can to not support a Nintendo console and this excuse later become the "official reason" for why Nintendo failed. I wonder if Nintendo made the PS2 or the PS3 what would be the excuses third-party would give to not support it, like "PS2's hardware is too complex" or "PS3's cell and blu-ray are too expensive".

The conspiracy theories are ridiculous and don't make any sense whatsoever. The third party developers are in the business to make money, which hasn't happened when many of them make games for Nintendo platforms. With the Wii, Nintendo showed up with an underpowered console that only a handful of games could sell on. With the Wii U, they made a system comparable in power to 6 and 7 year old hardware during a time when developers were planning on much more powerful systems and the system had absolutely no buzz behind it. Instead of making up nonsense about how developers have an irrational hatred of Nintendo, blame Nintendo for the console they built that no one, not even Nintendo, seems to care about.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Nintendo sell platformers, party games, adventure games, RPGs of differing variety, they sell casual games and some sport games. These titles all tend to sell well and third parties struggle to get a foot in when it comes to them. Look at the kart racer genre, Mario Kart pretty much has it on lockdown and it's only been Sega who have managed to create something that holds its own. Up until the PS1 era you used to get kart racers across all formats and from almost every publisher.

Ubisoft owes the success of Just Dance to the cultivation of a casual games userbase on the Wii. SEGA put Sonic exclusives on the platform. Rayman Origins sold best on the Wii, iirc too. Other best-selling third-party titles on the platform were also generally fitness, dance and party titles.

Publishers will make titles on a platform for which they believe there is a receptive audience. Nintendo haven't made substantial effort in their brand and positioning, in their software output, in their hardware design, in their general philosophy, to create an ecosystem and cultivating an audience for the types of games third parties generally make.

Here's an example (figure courtesy of jvm) of the opposite situation, wherein Microsoft, whose primary domain for most of the generation was "core" games, through massive investment cultivated an audience for casual titles.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Then again, if somehow the platform would gain considerable gas, these guys would jump back in.

I doubt it. Wii sold gangbusters, and was snubbed by third parties. Wii U's best opportunity to snag third party games is right now while 360/PS3 are still going strong, and it's failing to do so in a big way. Going to be hard to gain gas when consumers keep noticing that the U platform isn't home to the games they like.

 

[SMD]

Ubisoft owes the success of Just Dance to the cultivation of a casual games userbase on the Wii. SEGA put Sonic exclusives on the platform. Rayman Origins sold best on the Wii, iirc too. Other best-selling third-party titles on the platform were also generally fitness, dance and party titles.

Publishers will make titles on a platform for which they believe there is a receptive audience. Nintendo haven't made substantial effort in their brand and positioning, in their software output, in their hardware design, in their general philosophy, to create an ecosystem and cultivating an audience for the types of games third parties generally make.

Here's an example (figure courtesy of jvm) of the opposite situation, wherein Microsoft, whose primary domain for most of the generation was "core" games, through massive investment cultivated an audience for casual titles.

Microsoft, while initially a

That sort of proves my point though, Nintendo never made a dance game (I'm choosing to ignore that Mario Dance Dance Revolution one ) and that's a bit like Microsoft fostering this environment where FPS games succeed on their hardware thanks to Halo but without them saturating the market.

I take your point but it doesn't follow that these games don't exist on the machine. For example, the N64's weaknesses were RPGs and racing games. The Saturn had Sega Rally and Daytona, the PS1 had TOCA, V-Rally and Gran Turismo. The N64 had... Top Gear Rally, Beetle Adventure Racing and F1 World Grand Prix.

If I'm not mistaken, F1WGP actually did really well for an F1 game which is why it got a sequel. Football games sold really well on the N64 thanks to it being the only console on the market that didn't require a multi tap for 4 player. Yet Konami didn't bring the Pro Evo series to the machine or the Gamecube (except in Japan) and racing games just dried up on Nintendo consoles.

There's always an excuse with Nintendo hardware that you don't get with other machines. Technical limitations are cited as if the other consoles are perfect. The market is blamed despite titles selling well, even anecdotally. Take Chinatown Wars for example, I know I bought it as did almost all of my friends - and we rarely totally agree on games. Yet Rockstar said it didn't do as well as they hoped.

I've long since come to the conclusion that for some publishers, they just don't want to deal with Nintendo and some developers don't care for it. And that's fine but don't try to dress it up any other way. I just think it's weird that there's this acceptance that Nintendo owners rarely just have one console and so they should buy titles for the other machine. It's almost a little insulting in a way, that with my Nintendo hat on my money isn't good enough and my tastes don't suit but with my PS360 hat on, I'm a part of an exciting fanbase.

Microsoft went for the core because conventional wisdom pre-2005 was that these were the people who'd spend the money on a games console. Once the Wii hit and Kinect was in the works, that changed and roundabout the same time mobile gaming was a thing in the West. Now it's Kinect and Smartglass and convergence and what have you - because that's where the bigger money is.

Gamers are fickle. It takes a lot for them to change their habits. That's why a slow decline is arguably worse than sending out one shit title then making a better sequel. We're creatures of apathy. SimCity came out and sold millions even though everyone said "oh this always online system is terrible". Not only was it terrible but so was the game. What did EA learn? That we're suckers and leave it long enough and we'll buy anything.

Casual gamers are different, they might buy one game but that doesn't mean they'll buy the next one. There's so many of them that even a fraction of them remaining loyal to a brand makes it worth it.

It's a great trick though. EA are cutting down the number of franchises they produce while increasing their mobile gaming output yet they're considered more 'core' orientated than Nintendo. It's brilliant marketing. And people keep slagging them off but buying their games, hats off to them.

 

[jmood88]

Completely Nintendo's fault, really. They need to axe their current marketing team.

I still have yet to see a single Wii U ad.

 

[jmood88]

It´s so funny that some Nintendo fans always say in these threads nothing was lost, yet in the Nintendo should not put Wario in western markets gets the response that Nintendo needs games, even shit games like Wario. That shit games are better than no games. FUNNY.

Those are the same people who say that graphics don't matter but will post that X gif every time graphics come up and talk about how great it looks.

 

[TaroYamada]

There's always an excuse with Nintendo hardware that you don't get with other machines. Technical limitations are cited as if the other consoles are perfect. The market is blamed despite titles selling well, even anecdotally. Take Chinatown Wars for example, I know I bought it as did almost all of my friends - and we rarely totally agree on games. Yet Rockstar said it didn't do as well as they hoped.

As I mentioned earlier, the NPD for the first two weeks of Chinatown Wars was 90k according to Gamespot. I think that Rockstar answered the Nintendo fanbase by giving it a good shot (judging by review scores), they weren't met with a particularly successful reception at retail if that NPD is anything to go by.

 

[Pancakes R Us]

Who is this Audience that is not for them? They realize most early adopters of consoles arent casuals, right?

Yes, but most early adopters on Nintendo consoles these days aren't the type to buy the games they make.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Those are the same people who say that graphics don't matter but will post that X gif every time graphics come up and talk about how great it looks.

Maybe you get the wrong perception but the original post for that gif was because of scale not graphics.

SCALE!

 

[jmood88]

Maybe you get the wrong perception but the original post for that gif was because of scale not graphics.

You must not have seen the threads that the gif keeps getting posted in.

 

[kinggroin]

Short term (a year) is completely understandable given the current Wii u situation.

To include foreseeable future, is a little shortsighted methinks. Ah well.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

You must not have seen the threads that the gif keeps getting posted in.

As of currently no, which threads?

 

[ThaGuy]

I remember hearing that the reason 3rd party games don't sell is because Nintendo games were to good. Then when Nintendo gives them some time to release a game, they say well we want to wait until more first party games come out and boost system sales lol.

This stuff bothers me, but I already knew I was going to own a wii u and a 720/Ps4 so I dont suffer a big a loss as some other people. And I still think Nintendo will be fine.

 

[Fandangox]

It´s so funny that some Nintendo fans always say in these threads nothing was lost, yet in the Nintendo should not put Wario in western markets gets the response that Nintendo needs games, even shit games like Wario. That shit games are better than no games. FUNNY.

Here's a list of most of the post in this thread who said nothing of value was lost or didn't acknowledged the problem lack of support actually indicates.

Well, I don't think I've ever bought a game from them, so...

No big loss really.

I bought a Wii U for exclusives, my PC is for everything else. This does not bother me at all.

Didn't we have this thread a month ago already?

Nothing of value was lost though. Own Dead Island on PC (vanilla version) and man that game is... mediocre. Bad even. Sucks for those dudes wanting their games on Wii U.

What do they even make?

I know nothing about them.

deep who?

never heard of them...

I don't think Wii U is missing much then.

Saints Row...
...Dead Island...
...that's cool, I guess, I really have no intention to play any of those anyways.

So when they close up shop I can feel slightly less bad about it...

Devs love to discount Nintendo, worked like a charm for so many of them last gen. Studios could have easily put smaller budgets into Wii projects and made some money, but they blew their wads on HD projects and then folded. Personally, I'd love to have my projects on as many platforms as possible, because the market is not so cut and dry sometimes.

As a Wii U owner I will not buy any game from Deep Silver on my PS4

how do you like dem apples?

And here is the list of people on the Game & Wario thread who mentioned less games coming to the system is stupid.

No. The Wii U needs more games, not less.

If anything that means they need to release it in the US and PAL regions to try and recoup the losses

Even if Nintendo can't make money off it, they should still release it for publicity reasons because it makes their library look bigger. Think of the money the game loses as advertising costs for the Wii U console.

No. Why should they?

Ah yes, not releasing games, the true gate to success.

Im embarrassed that you need an actual response, but a game selling goodor bad in Japan has zero to do with how well it does anywhere else in the world. Plus, I had no idea you where the arbiter of whether people want to play something or not.

Hardware sales are more important than software sales right now.

So no.

No. Wii U has to have more games. Unless they want to make a real WarioWare title to release over here.

The big question is why Nintendo ever even developed this game in the first place. Why not spend the resources doing something... good?

But yeah, in any case, no, they should bring it over to the west. The Wii U really need more games.

No, I want it. At least release it on the eShop.

Oh my god, this a million times.

It's bad enough for Nintendo that third parties aren't bothering to bring their PS360 games to Wii U. The last thing they need to do is release fewer first party games.

Yes, let's cancel one of the handful of games coming to the platform!

Yes, I want less games.

Not relasing a finished game sounds like a great plan.

I very much doubt that it needs much for a game like this to be profitable, so, what would be the point?

what the hell, game & wario looks amazing. budget price it or something, there's no reason to not bring content over especially stuff that has limited translation required



it's getting pretty ridiculous.

Yes, all games that sell bad in Japan should not be released in other markets.

doing poorly in Japan is even more of a reason to release it in other regions.

So your plan for Nintendo to make money is to not release games. I'll be honest, this seems like a bad plan.

No point bringing Bravely Default over, it probably won't make money. The Wonderful 101 too since nearly everyone here thinks its not a system seller. Oh and Pikmin 3? It has been 10 years and it's a game that only sells to the hardcore Nintendo fans according to a lot of posters here! Cancel it all! Just get cracking on NSMBU2!

This is an idiotic thread. Why would they cancel a game that they've already spent money developing and that is pretty much done? Sure, it won't sell systems but it'd be a huge waste of money. Between this and the ideas in the Iwata thread, some of you guys would lose billions if you ran Nintendo.

#1 - It's not a killer app by any stretch, but it looks fun. I plan on buying it as my family will have as much fun on it as we've had with any of the Warioware games.

#2 - Why would Nintendo scrap the release when new releases can do nothing but help the flailing system? The idea that they shouldn't is just being goosey.

#3 - don't act like an opinion is fact. Maybe you don't like seeing them reveal or talk about one of the mini games on a Nintendo Direct, but that doesn't mean that everyone feels the same as you.

Edit: I do agree with the idea that fifty is too much for it, I'll grab it when I can get it for thirty or less.

In the meantime, between Lego City, Monster Hunter, and Need for Speed, I should be set on WiiU gaming until the summer.

Yes, because what the Wii U needs right now is obviously less games.

Wii U needs less games!




Shouldn't be more than $30.

I love the WarioWare series and am looking forward to this one as well.

The only reason someone should ever argue for the cancellation of a game is if there's some ethical justification for the game's cancellation, and even then it's debatable within the "games as art" debate.

I never understood people wanting a company to cancel a game that they personally don't want just because their own anecdotal evidence shows no demand for the game. You don't want it? Don't buy it. Game & Wario isn't replacing the next AAA Nintendo title, and from the very small sampling of people posting in this thread you can see that there are some of us who want it.



It's the same exact thing that happened when 3DS came out and every other thread was a "3DS doomed, Nintendo doomed." thread. Where are those threads now? I guess they stopped posting them after 3DS was officially pulled and Nintendo went to iOS... oh wait.

They need to release every game that they make, period. If they don't want to bother with manufacturing costs, release it on the eShop at least. Game & Wario might not be some hot ticket item but any additions to the Wii U's library to make it a more attractive platform are very much welcomed. Besides, even if we put aside new console buyers, I bet plenty of the Nintendo "core" players who already have Wii U's would be willing to buy a Wario-related game. It's at least worth a try.

Give it a chance to be a slow burn, if anything. Don't put it out and abandon it like Smooth Moves (which is one of my favorite Wii games, albeit an unpolished experience in terms of controls).

If the game appears as high risk, then Nintendo can choose to bring it closer to budget price.

I hope they don't cancel the game.
I'm not as hyped as I would be for a real WarioWare title, but I'm actually kinda looking forward to it.
And let's face it, the Wii U is in no position to be cancelling games at the moment.

Because what the Wii U really needs right now is less games!

The Wii U is lacking in... games! I don't see how cancelling this game will help the Wii U's situation in any way. Heck I don't think it cost Nintendo all that much to develop.

WiiU needs more games.

Give the WiiU more games.

I'm torn... I don't want there to be LESS Wii U games... but Game and Wario didn't interest me in the least, and even if they do bring it over... I'm not likely to put money down on a copy.

No desire to get the game, but it'd be pretty dumb not to ship an already-developed game to a starving console.

Oh, and "Dave Melter" worries me. I imagine him as some sort of Batman vigilante that sees a signal in the air any time there's a Wii U thread.

well, i was one of the 22k that bought it. it... isn't that great.

still, wii u needs something.

No. The Wii U needs all the exclusive games it gets. However if Nintendo sells this for the wrong price and it doesn't sell then it deserves the failure it gets. It's really that simple. I also highly doubt that a WarioWare style game had a lot invested into it money and time wise so I question how much the failure is going hurt Nintendo in the long run.

None of the users in both threads overlap.

Overruled.

Spoiler

I was bored

 

[Techies]

Imagine being able to couch COOP Saints Row, one on TV and one on remote. Without the horrendous network code and with 1:1 phyiscs where both can see and feel every hit.

For instance the insurance fraud mission where you must run each other over. Still dream of that day...

Same with dead island.

 

[jmood88]

As of currently no, which threads?

I'll see if I can find them but I don't remember the thread titles off-hand.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Spoiler

I was bored

Kept me entertained for a minute though.

So that's something.

 

[Chet Rippo]

The Who Quote Me feature can really scare me when it links me to a thread I've never remember posting in.

 

[Fandangox]

The Who Quote Me feature can really scare me when it links me to a thread I've never remember posting in.

I apologize.