Support NeoGAF

[Dark Octave]

really? where were they during the wii era?

Learning their lesson that led them to this point.

 

[Azih]

Take 2 however managed to make Bully specifically for the Wiimote, stop acting like it was a grueling impossible task.
It's been done...multiple times even.

Bully... was a PS2 game and so the underpowered hardware was less of an issue, comparing it to GTAIV is nuts. And for all of the extra effort that Rockstar went to to port and create a brand new control scheme for the Wii, how well did Bully sell on the Wii as compared to the 360 and PS2 versions? And Bully was a very well reviewed game for the Wii too!

 

[The Maverick]

I know what post I'd nominate for the link to be to.

I'm ded at "Major turnaround? Not necessarily..."

Some folks just choose to be blind.

 

[jroc74]

They were already sceptical two years ago.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=478627

Interesting....

I feel people here are being really biased against Rockstar at large. If Rockstar felt they had big money to make on a Nintendo system they would do it. People bringing up that they hate them and don't want to work with them are being foolish. The Gamecube could NOT run GTA as it ran on the Ps2/Xbox due to the disc only holding what, 1.5 gigs of data? No one wants an open world game where you swap disc, and that's not factoring the controller being a bad fit. Hell the Xbox got a year late port of the game as well, and once Rockstar saw their audience was also pretty strong on Xbox/360, gave them equal support.

Nintendo has not developed a system that would be able to do their games justice and Rockstar seems VERY quality focused, if they have to compromise their game in any significant way (butchered world size, horrible graphics) they probably feel it's smarter to just focus on the systems that can handle their vision.

Rockstar threw Nintendo a few bones with mild success or total failure (china town wars) so it's not like they haven't tried, hell they tried in ways that specifically tailored to the strengths/demographics of those consoles too, there just isn't as much money to make doing a Nintendo exclusive vs a game on 2-3 platforms. Chinatown Wars is a really fun game btw, the fact it sold so bad really shows the audience just isn't there on Nintendo.

Exactly. A few other ppl already mentioned Chinatown Wars too. Its wild tho that there are real facts to back up poor sales on the Wii U...and yet ppl still want companies to basically burn money to help Nintendo sell consoles.

As a Windows Phone user this statement is just the norm.

Don't worry guys just keep increasing that market share!

Pretty much this. BB users probably know the feeling as well.

It amazes me that game companies expect hardware to sell without any software.

These companies aren't in the business of selling Nintendo hardware.

Yet they expect Nintendo hardware to sell without putting any games on it. They're clueless.

Its a catch 22 situation. Which comes first: the chicken or the egg? But even in that case....the PS4 and XBO are selling like mad....with very lil games available for them. Its the future prospects that are selling them too, the features, specs, etc.

Wii U uses a custom Blu Ray though. It's probably proprietary.

I wondered about this recently. It might play a part, maybe one day we will know if it does or not.

 

[Mael]

Bully... was a PS2 game and so the underpowered hardware was less of an issue, comparing it to GTAIV is nuts. And for all of the extra effort that Rockstar went to to port and create a brand new control scheme for the Wii, how well did Bully sell on the Wii as compared to the 360 and PS2 versions? And Bully was a very well reviewed game for the Wii too!

Considering they're in no rush to make a sequel to Bully I wouldn't call it a blazing success anywhere anyway.
It was also a vastly better game.
I also wouldn' t put much weight between critical reception and market reception on Wii.
It's notoriously unreliable with games like Wiisports, Wiifit and others being wildly popular and reviewing like shit.
They managed to make stuffs like GTA ps2 games run on psp, they certainly could have tried and succeeded if there was a will.

I feel people here are being really biased against Rockstar at large. If Rockstar felt they had big money to make on a Nintendo system they would do it. People bringing up that they hate them and don't want to work with them are being foolish. The Gamecube could NOT run GTA as it ran on the Ps2/Xbox due to the disc only holding what, 1.5 gigs of data? No one wants an open world game where you swap disc, and that's not factoring the controller being a bad fit. Hell the Xbox got a year late port of the game as well, and once Rockstar saw their audience was also pretty strong on Xbox/360, gave them equal support.

Holy revisionist Batman!
I'm sure the exclusive content MSFT paid 50 mil for had nothing to do with how Rockstar treated the 360...

 

[AmFreak]

Holy revisionist Batman!
I'm sure the exclusive content MSFT paid 50 mil for had nothing to do with how Rockstar treated the 360...

How did they treat the 360?
The 50 million was a loan for time-exclusive dlc. GTA4 came without money and it came because it was obvious it would sell.

 

[Mael]

How did they treat MSFT?
The 50 million was a loan for time-exclusive dlc. GTA4 came without money and it came because it was obvious it would sell.

They treated MS platform as the lead platform, coming from the ps2 that is certainly what wasn't expected.
Heck it's more probably due to Sony's blunders than anything at this point anyway.
Still actual marketshare was certainly not the reason that happened.

 

[AmFreak]

Treated as the lead-platform for what - GTA4?
The money came later so there is no correlation with it.
And btw basicly everybody treated the 360 as the lead cause it was out one year earlier, sold more of the software these companies make, was easier to work with and had better dev tools for a long time.

 

[Mael]

Treated as the lead-platform for what - GTA4?
The money came later so there is no correlation with it.
And btw basicly everybody treated the 360 as the lead cause it was out one year earlier, sold more of the software these companies make, was easier to work with and had better dev tools for a long time.

Yeah the 360 wasn't the lead platform because the ps3 launch was a total disaster from all front for everyone concerned.
xbox 360 wasn't in a vacuum, MSFT internal policy were nice to 3rd parties not because they like being nice too.
Also at this point you're not arguing about instal base being the sole reason x360 got the support it got too.

Also no correlation?
Were you even there when that was announced?
That deal was pretty big in the news in these circles.
from a marketing perspective it was pretty huge and a rather big missed opportunity from Sony at the time.

 

[AmFreak]

Also no correlation?
Were you even there when that was announced?
That deal was pretty big in the news in these circles.
from a marketing perspective it was pretty huge and a rather big missed opportunity from Sony at the time.

Ofc i was.
There is no correlation cause developing of GTA4 started years before the dlc announcement.
There were many other reasons for the 360 being lead that i have mentioned. And as i said basicly everything was lead at the 360 at that time for these same reasons. And all these other devs didn't get a 50 mil. $ loan from Ms.

And even if we are for a second assume the 50mil $ was the reason for 360 being lead of GTA4 - i don't see the point. Because regardless of the 50mil$ the 360 would have gotten every single game it got, cause the shit sold there.

 

[Azih]

Considering they're in no rush to make a sequel to Bully I wouldn't call it a blazing success anywhere anyway.

So a well reviewed game made by Rockstar doesn't do well on the Wii, why would they try again?

 

[Metallix87]

It seems to me you (like Nintendo) are out of touch. Kids playing these M-rated games before they should is nothing new to video games or movies or anything.

If you are a true Nintendo fan, you should want them to make core oriented IP in-house. If I was EA, Take2, etc, I wouldn't put core oriented IP on Nintendo home consoles because Nintendo has not shown any commitment to the those products I wish to sell. The "we can't compete with Nintendo games" saying is a tired excuse from current Nintendo fans which undermine the truth of the current situation. As long as Nintendo makes primarily "family friendly" and "games for everyone" fare, their problems with third parties will remain.

What, exactly, do you define as "core oriented"? I'd say the likes of Zelda, Xenoblade, and Metroid are "core oriented".

 

[royalan]

What, exactly, do you define as "core oriented"? I'd say the likes of Zelda, Xenoblade, and Metroid are "core oriented".

Zelda and Metroid are only "core oriented" in the sense that they are targeted at Nintendo's "core" audience, but that's it. Zelda and Metroid do not resonate strongly with "core gamers" in general, and this has been the case for a long time.

And I don't know why defenders of Nintendo constantly bring up Xenoblade because, really, it works against your argument. Here you have a major new IP, one of the most critically acclaimed JRPGs of the gen, a Wii exclusive by a trusted Nintendo partner built from the ground up to appeal to the core, the very type of game Nintendo should be throwing its weight behind...and not even Nintendo themselves could be bothered with it. Nintendo did everything to sweep that game under the rug short of...well, literally sweeping it under a rug.

What kind of message do you think that sends 3rd parties?

 

[Shaanyboi]

I wish people would just say "yeah, we don't want to work on a Nintendo console" instead of

"Oh, we aren't releasing games for Nintendo because the hardware is too weak."
"Oh, we aren't releasing games for Nintendo because then we'd have to compete with their first party games."
"Oh, we aren't releasing games for Nintendo because the install base isn't there."

Are you suggesting those reasons are invalid?

 

[MisterHero]

Zelda and Metroid are only "core oriented" in the sense that they are targeted at Nintendo's "core" audience, but that's it. Zelda and Metroid do not resonate strongly with "core gamers" in general, and this has been the case for a long time.

And I don't know why defenders of Nintendo constantly bring up Xenoblade because, really, it works against your argument. Here you have a major new IP, one of the most critically acclaimed JRPGs of the gen, a Wii exclusive by a trusted Nintendo partner built from the ground up to appeal to the core, the very type of game Nintendo should be throwing its weight behind...and not even Nintendo themselves could be bothered with it. Nintendo did everything to sweep that game under the rug short of...well, literally sweeping it under a rug.

What kind of message do you think that sends 3rd parties?

While Nintendo didn't help Xenoblade's case very well, they also had a history with underwhelming RPG reception in the West (EarthBound). Did they stop making RPGs? No. They just released Bravely Default for 3DS. Xenoblade is getting a sequel AND a worldwide release. That doesn't sound like sweeping it under the rug.

Take-Two decided not to put GTA on Gamecube probably because Smuggler's Run: Warzone didn't do well. Hopefully you can tell the difference between Smuggler's Run, Bully, Manhunt, and any of the 3D GTA games.

 

[fred]

The only hope for publishers releasing AAA 'mature' titles on the Wii U would be Bayonetta 2 doing over a million I reckon. Nintendo should have released a first party FPS game on launch day, a Halo/Killzone equivalent (although not necessarily sci-fi based).

They also need to have more Bayonetta 2 type Megatons to unleash at this year's E3.

 

[Freezie KO]

If I was an exec at Take Two and I saw this Nintendo commercial, I'd run as fast as I can in the other direction.

 

[Rolf NB]

How did they treat the 360?
The 50 million was a loan for time-exclusive dlc. GTA4 came without money and it came because it was obvious it would sell.

Poor permabroke Rockstar couldn't get funding from the credit sharks anymore, but thank god, we have Microsoft Banking Services bailing them out!

 

[gogosox8]

If it's all about consumer base, then what was Take-Two's reason for treating the Wii like an unwanted bastard child?

This is exactly what I was thinking. I don't remember seeing a lot of Take Two games on the wii so this sounds like bs. They probably don't have a good relationship with Nintendo and are just using this as a reason to not put their games onto it.

 

[royalan]

While Nintendo didn't help Xenoblade's case very well, they also had a history with underwhelming RPG reception in the West (EarthBound). Did they stop making RPGs? No. They just released Bravely Default for 3DS. Xenoblade is getting a sequel AND a worldwide release. That doesn't sound like sweeping it under the rug.

Oh bull. You cannot use a game that's almost 2 decades old to make the argument that Nintendo has a "history" of underwhelming RPG reception in the West. Especially considering the RPG explosion that occurred in the meantime. Does not change the fact that Nintendo had a complete gem of a game in a genre that was sorely under-represented on their hardware, and they did nothing with it. It also doesn't explain why Nintendo further obscured their own hardcore new IP or just flat-out canceled them at the start of the Wii (Disaster: Day of Crises and Project H.A.M.M.E.R). Again I ask: what message does this send to 3rd parties in regards to AAA hardcore titles finding an audience Nintendo platforms?

Also, can we stop saying that X is a direct sequel to Xenoblade until we even know what that means?

 

[Woo-Fu]

I wish people would just say "yeah, we don't want to work on a Nintendo console" instead of

"Oh, we aren't releasing games for Nintendo because the hardware is too weak."
"Oh, we aren't releasing games for Nintendo because then we'd have to compete with their first party games."
"Oh, we aren't releasing games for Nintendo because the install base isn't there."

I don't know why you're trying to pretend it is some sort of personal grudge when it is about the clearest business case possible that developing for Wii U is a waste of resources that will make a company more money on just about any other modern platform.

The Wii U is firmly in last place, get used to it. It is the Nokia N-Gage of consoles. Don't blame 3rd party developer/publishers when all of the blame rests with Nintendo.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Taking at look at the top selling games on the Wii platform I agree with them, the audience isn't there.

 

[r3ddvil]

I'm not sure why Nintendo gamers even care - T2 isn't at fault, they are correct in thinking that the Nintendo audience for their titles is minimal at best. I say this as a huge Nintendo fan and purchaser of Bully, GTA ect - but I make no illusions for myself that I will see these games on Nintendo platforms.

Truth is it's always been this way, all the way back to the NES. Back then, what would be considered "core" or "mature" gamers today were playing on PC's, be it DOS, Amiga or Atari ST's. This was consistent through the SNES days, and only starting with the PS1 did PC gamers begin to take more notice of what was going on in the console space. Essentially the PC/XBOX/PS audience as merged.

If I were Nintendo, I would follow a strategy of differentiating themselves content and experience wise. It worked for the Wii. It works for IOS - neither of which could be argued as riding on the waves of "AAA big budget blockbuster" type software. Just like the NES was built on the backs of then small Japanese developers, Nintendo I think would be wise to tap in to the indie developer scene - who seem to be eager to put their software on WiiU already, without incentive, and also seem to take a fair amount of inspiration from the design from the classic gameplay of the Nintendo 8/16 bit eras.

Partnering and/or funding with proven indie developers to release interesting and exclusive content - without the cost risk associated with AAA development - seems like good cost effective strategy, and all it takes is one or two "it" games to take hold, like angry birds, wii sports, minecraft were/are - to drive console sales.

 

[jimi_dini]

really? where were they during the wii era?

.

I call bullshit. Where was the GTA collection on Wii?

 

[Discomurf]

really? where were they during the wii era?

they gave a pretty good college try...


Manhunt 2
Bully
Table Tennis
I think 1 or 2 others and that was just Rockstar

 

[Log4Girlz]

Well if you remember, before Rockstar was Rockstar, it was a little studio known as DMA Design. They were famous for their Amiga games with publisher Psygnosis (now the defunct SCE Studio Liverpool) and their Lemmings series.

In the mid-90s, Nintendo of America wanted DMA Design to be part of the "core" of Nintendo 64's 1st-party lineup (1st-party = Nintendo published games), along with other deals with developers like LucasArts, Acclaim, Rareware, and Paradigm.

Under this arrangement, DMA Design created Uniracers for the SNES and was working on Body Harvest (predecessor to GTA) + Space Station Silicon Valley for the N64, but they were inexplicably abandoned by Nintendo and had to find another publisher (Midway / Take-Two) to see release. That burned bridges between the two companies.

Not only that, but after Body Harvest + Space Station Silicon Valley, DMA Design released a little-known title called GRAND THEFT AUTO III in 2001 / changed its name to Rockstar North / set up a new studio in Edinburgh and set the world on fire.


It's not like Rockstar North ever truly "abandoned" Nintendo. GTA + GTA 2 were released on Game Boy Color, Manhunt 2 was released on Wii, and Chinatown Wars was released on DS.

But the core GTA titles never found their way back to Nintendo home consoles.

Just imagine if Nintendo had continued to partner with these companies and didn't make a purple purse for a follow up to N64.

 

[Flame Lord]

This is exactly what I was thinking. I don't remember seeing a lot of Take Two games on the wii so this sounds like bs. They probably don't have a good relationship with Nintendo and are just using this as a reason to not put their games onto it.

From the looks of this wiki page, they released quite a few games for the Wii.

 

[Pancakes R Us]

I don't know why you're trying to pretend it is some sort of personal grudge when it is about the clearest business case possible that developing for Wii U is a waste of resources that will make a company more money on just about any other modern platform.

The Wii U is firmly in last place, get used to it. It is the Nokia N-Gage of consoles. Don't blame 3rd party developer/publishers when all of the blame rests with Nintendo.

This. Thank you and goodnight.

 

[MisterHero]

Oh bull. You cannot use a game that's almost 2 decades old to make the argument that Nintendo has a "history" of underwhelming RPG reception in the West. Especially considering the RPG explosion that occurred in the meantime. Does not change the fact that Nintendo had a complete gem of a game in a genre that was sorely under-represented on their hardware, and they did nothing with it. It also doesn't explain why Nintendo further obscured their own hardcore new IP or just flat-out canceled them at the start of the Wii (Disaster: Day of Crises and Project H.A.M.M.E.R). Again I ask: what message does this send to 3rd parties in regards to AAA hardcore titles finding an audience Nintendo platforms?

Also, can we stop saying that X is a direct sequel to Xenoblade until we even know what that means?

X is a followup to Xenoblade. A "spiritual sequel" if not a literal one. It inherits Xenoblade's playstyle as well as builds on it.

Your argument is moot because I just said Nintendo kept making RPGs anyways. However, Nintendo is a publisher of many genres and they put the marketing behind the games that are guaranteed to sell. They moneyhatted Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest. Just like Microsoft moneyhatted GTA IV.

They don't do what Take-Two did on Gamecube and scrap plans for their biggest franchise because of a couple failed obscure games. Hell, their biggest franchise would mean the biggest chance of success.

 

[The Maverick]

X is a followup to Xenoblade. A "spiritual sequel" if not a literal one. It inherits Xenoblade's playstyle as well as builds on it.

Your argument is moot because I just said Nintendo kept making RPGs anyways. However, Nintendo is a publisher of many genres and they put the marketing behind the games that are guaranteed to sell. They moneyhatted Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest. Just like Microsoft moneyhatted GTA IV.

They don't do what Take-Two did on Gamecube and scrap plans for their biggest franchise because of a couple failed obscure games. Hell, their biggest franchise would mean the biggest chance of success.

Your second paragraph highlights exactly what is wrong with Nintendo. You can't claim that Xenoblade is appealing to the core and then acknowledge that Nintendo only markets their guaranteed sellers. How else are they meant to become guaranteed sellers without being marketed? Especially to that 100 million Wii audience.

But nope, Xenoblade almost didn't even hit the states. And it might as well not have with how they treated it. Why should third parties support Nintendo when they can't even support their own first party games?

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm not really sure why Xenoblade is brought up at all as it basically highlights being out of touch with the state of Western markets... where the broad appeal of JRPGs has decreased dramatically.

If I was an exec at Take Two and I saw this Nintendo commercial, I'd run as fast as I can in the other direction.

It's actually not a terrible commercial, but it certainly highlights the difference in target demographics. How anyone can look at that ad, and really Nintendo's console business positioning for a long time, and think they and Take-Two align well... I can't really comprehend it.

 

[MisterHero]

Your second paragraph highlights exactly what is wrong with Nintendo. You can't claim that Xenoblade is appealing to the core and then acknowledge that Nintendo only markets their guaranteed sellers. How else are they meant to become guaranteed sellers without being marketed? Especially to that 100 million Wii audience.

But nope, Xenoblade almost didn't even hit the states. And it might as well not have with how they treated it. Why should third parties support Nintendo when they can't even support their own first party games?

I said they got Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest. Granted, the latter only really helped the DS and the MMO may never come here. Nintendo does have a problem making games that only really make sense to Japan. Mother 3 is another relatively recent example. Th

My point was they didn't give up on Xeno. They increased their effort with the franchise. They didn't shutter Monolithsoft. They're making a 3DS game aside from X.

Back to the topic at hand: if Nintendo did what Take-Two did on Wii they would have given up on the franchise and genre altogether. Manhunt 2 almost got the AO (Adults Only) ESRB rating- just the thought killed the game. Can they judge the performance of hypothetical PS2 GTA ports because of Manhunt? Or Bully? REALLY?

I know you guys are quick to criticize Nintendo but please. Take-Two has LOTS of room for scrutiny.

 

[jimi_dini]

Manhunt 2 almost got the AO (Adults Only) ESRB rating- just the thought killed the game.

That wasn't even the main issue. Manhunt 2 was just crap. And they even censored the game heavily. What did they expect, to sell lots in that state? In Europe it took them ages to release the game at all. I imported it back then from US.

Can they judge the performance of hypothetical PS2 GTA ports because of Manhunt? Or Bully? REALLY?

It's even worse - them releasing Bully means that the engine, that powered the PS2-GTAs was running fine on Wii. It was even an improved version of the one running San Andreas.

Which means it would have been quite easy to get the GTAs running. They could have just looked at the numbers, that Resident Evil 4 was selling on Wii. Which is a mature-rated game. It sold around the same numbers as on PS2 despite being a late port. House of the Dead: Overkill - an extremely violent game sold nearly a million on Wii (it sold 1/8th of that as late port on PS3). But nope, why release them on Wii - would have made us money herp derp.

Behaviour like this makes me think that Nintendo really raped some developers dog or something like that. Because it just doesn't make any sense at all. Anyone with half a brain would have done it.

 

[FStop7]

Sessler?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Take-Two has LOTS of room for scrutiny.

Sure, what immediately comes to mind is excessively long development cycles and associated costs, but not the platforms they've chosen for those projects, which are generally sound decisions.

What also gets ignored are that these decisions are made with opportunity cost in mind i.e. if we greenlight these Wii/Wii U games... what are we not doing with those resources instead and would that be more lucrative.