-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Wii U was supposed to get PS360 ports, what happened?
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Extra effort needed for gamepad functions?
Haunted
Member
[citation needed]
Huge_Jackman
Banned
It started while ago when Yamuchi-san invited all the 3rd party ceo's to his love hotels. He knew one day they would hate Nintendo and not develop for his ground breaking consoles so he set up upon himself to exact revenge before this could happen. You could say it was a self-fufilling prophecy. So he sent out the ugliest, fattest, foulest, and stankiest, "lovers" to each of their rooms. All the ceo's weren't to keen on this but they made do. While they slept from the pure exhaustion they received, Yamuchi-san sneaked into each of their rooms and ripped off his notorious Taco Bell triple gordiata crunch with fire hot sauce farts into each ceo's faces. The next day the ceo's woke up with the worst cases of pink eye ever seen in medical history. Some even lost their vision and one had to be put into a chemically induced coma. That day all 3rd party's agreed they will only release shitty ports on Nintendo consoles or none at all.
prag16
Banned
Right. This isn't the ENTIRE issue obviously, but it's a major part of it, which people seem to like to downplay for whatever reason.
That's not really the point. The point is being treated like second class citizens. Most Wii U CoD owners probably wouldn't have bought the DLC, but not getting it (and Elite, etc) is a slap in the face.
Doesn't matter. It's still a late port.
All three of those are late ports (the latter two EXTREMELY late at full price with cheap GOTY editions (Batman) and Trilogy pack (ME) available at the same time on other platforms.
Even if that's the case, the games commonly used to prove 3rd party games can't sell were ALL late. Every last one of them. Okay, AC3 was only a month late and CoD was only a week late. But day one is huge for these types of games.
As I've already said, lateness and crappyness of some (most) [all?] ports is not the WHOLE issue (not even close), but acting like it's a total non issue (as many of the detractors) do is also disingenuous.
We'll have examples this year of games that are launched the same day, and are "on par" featurewise (presumably) in Splinter Cell, Watch_Dogs, Rayman, Batman, AC4, etc.
Those could all bomb too, but unfortunately with the Wii U now widely being perceived as a failure (a monkey it didn't yet have on its back during launch) these bombings could be for a different reason than the original bombings.
Yep. It's not just "bad sales". They're abysmal. The Wii U is extremely unattractive to third party publishers at the moment and for good reason. Have some (like EA) made some pretty shady decisions? Sure. You absolutely can not put the blame on them though. This is all Nintendo.
Does the Wii U need more games to attract consumers? Of course. Not just any game, though. The Wii U is in desperate need of a Wii Sports-like hit. Something to move hardware and eventually software. Will a new Zelda be enough to have that kind of effect? I'm sure that's their hope.
Here's why I believe the the Wii U won't turn around with out some kind of massively popular hit game.
Nintendo has released a console that;
1 - On it's surface, appears to offer very little that the 360 and PS3 don't already do. The tablet, at this point, has been a complete none starter. No one gives a shit.
2 - The original Wii motion controls has completely fallen out of favor with both casual and core gamers. Most old Wii consoles and controllers were collecting dust, releasing a more powerful Wii was not the solution.
CosmicQueso
Member
You remember when this thread was brought up, specifically this post, where Pachter says "I think it is shocking at how poor the understanding is of how the business works on NeoGAF. When I say shocking, out of the 10,000 posts, 20,000 posts? I've probably seen fewer then 10 where the person posting actually understand how the industry works."?
Remember that?
Yeah.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
Honestly, seems to me like Nintendo has a "I got mine" approach to third parties. They don't build hardware with porting in mind, they build it specifically for their own first party software. GAF loves to bitch about ads and whatnot, but MS made third party heaven. You wanna know how to get third party support? You look at MS from early in the gen, they seemingly built their console around winning third party developers over. When you look at sales, 360/PS3 being close to even, the huge third party games tend to sell almost 2x as much on MS consoles. Its easy to port to, it has ads that let you know games came out, and it built an online community that makes you want to jump in with what everyone else is playing.
Barry Burton
Member
Nintendo released a (basically) current-gen system in the 7th year of the current generation, without a compelling enough feature to set itself apart from the existing current-gen systems or their upcoming successors (like the Wii had). Basically, in the grand scheme of things for everybody outside of Nintendo, where does this system fit in? It doesn't, and that's why you aren't seeing support.
Going into 2012, the demographic that had a very high demand for Wii U is an audience of Nintendo fans that only owned a Wii, that only plan on owning Nintendo consoles, and that's just not a very large audience. Had they struck with something like this in 2009 or 2010 when the Wii still had momentum, we'd be talking a different story, but Nintendo let most of their new Wii audience evaporate over the course of 3 years. They were left only with Nintendo fans craving something new.
There was much higher demand for a truly next-gen console after 6-7 years of the Xbox 360 and PS3, and Nintendo did not deliver on that front. That's why it's finding itself struggling to find a place in the market both among consumers and publishers. It's a console that is essentially isolated to its own bubble, and its all due to the position Nintendo has put the system in.
Going into 2012, the demographic that had a very high demand for Wii U is an audience of Nintendo fans that only owned a Wii, that only plan on owning Nintendo consoles, and that's just not a very large audience. Had they struck with something like this in 2009 or 2010 when the Wii still had momentum, we'd be talking a different story, but Nintendo let most of their new Wii audience evaporate over the course of 3 years. They were left only with Nintendo fans craving something new.
There was much higher demand for a truly next-gen console after 6-7 years of the Xbox 360 and PS3, and Nintendo did not deliver on that front. That's why it's finding itself struggling to find a place in the market both among consumers and publishers. It's a console that is essentially isolated to its own bubble, and its all due to the position Nintendo has put the system in.
Chuck Norris
Banned
Gamers will change consoles for PS4 and Xbox One multiplats. They aren't going to change from PS4/360 to WiiU for identical multi plats
Snowden's Secret
Banned
Wikipedia said:
That's every game released at retail on Wii U. Now let's sort it into categories:
Nintendo First Party said:
Shovelware and/or Casual Stuff said:
Late Ports said:
Third Party Games that aren't Late Ports or Shovelware said:
Notice anything? Which category do the best selling third party games fall into? Which categories have the largest amount of entries, late port, shovelware, or not late port?
GhostTrick
Banned
And that's the point here. While you make disappointing sales (I'm not even sure it sold over a million with both PS360 version) on a 150 million userbase, how do you think you could make as much with a 3 million userbase ?
Well that isn't exactly 3rd parties' problem/fault. it's Nintendo's for releasing their new console with specs being barely an improvement over 7 years old consoles, and with an awkward timing.
So again, what were 3rd parties supposed to do for Wii U's launch window? Release new, original, exclusive AAA games? This NEVER happens, on any console.
Nevertheless, a lot of them released more games than Nintendo, and provided the Wii U with a large diversity of titles. Nintendo didn't bother much to support their own hardware.
Agreed.
I don't understand why anyone tries to make the point of "No one is making games for the Wii U because of poor sales, so why are they making more games for PS4 and Xbone when they haven't sold units yet?".
1 - No shit they haven't sold units, they are not on the market yet.
2 - Even though it doesn't mean as much this time, it still IS the next generation of consoles. Developers move over to new hardware. It's how it's always worked. Again, no shit.
It really doesn't make sense. Whatsoever. I can't begin to explain how flawed that argument is.
You're not serious with this comment...right?
Actually it's not disingenuous and I'm not a detractor at all, more like a realist. There is plenty of evidence with game sales in this industry that prove the average consumer does not pay attention or is aware of the quality of a port. The types of gamers that know how a port stacks up is in the vast minority. Look at how well Skyrim sold on the PS3 as a good example. You and other people on GAF know about the quality of ports because we follow games much closer than even most people who would consider themselves "gamers". Most people just don't care about a random blurry texture or a slightly lower frame rate, especially since most of them don't notice it.
So sure, I guess it can have some effect on game sales, at least with the hardcore of hardcore gamers. However most of these types of gamers are very likely to already own a PS360, so again why bother with the Wii-U version?
Even if what you said were true, what's the excuse for the poor sales of exclusive 3rd party titles like Zombie-U?
Edit:
Just saw your edit. I'm not so sure the reason for these new games bombing would be different than the launch window titles bombing. Again, why would someone buy the Wii-U version over the PS360 version? Did Nintendo build the userbase that would buy these types of titles? I have the feeling that these poor sales are all related to the core issues surrounding the Wii-U.
Mr. B Natural
Member
Yep. They talked the talk but alway refuse to walk the walk. Lucky for them, talking the talk was enough to be tricked into thinking they'd walk the walk.
AppleSmack
Banned
Very serious. Developers have a strong bias against Nintendo and they don't support the platform regardless of wether it sells or not.
The denial is strong with you.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I'm honestly not trying to be provocative with this statement, so don't take this as some lazy attempt to get a rise out of you, but I really feel like some are just incapable of accepting that there aren't enough Wii U owners out there that want to buy Wii U multiplatform games to drive sales into a respectable territory. Again, I think that there are factors that you can point to that might serve as an indication as to why Wii U software isn't flying off the shelves in terms of third party support. But acknowledging that doesn't explain this bizarre narrative wherein it's suggested that the Wii U userbase is comprised of only the most knowledge and discerning gamers in the marketplace who can pick up on every perceived slight.
So, this fall, when I stroll into Best Buy or GameStop or wherever to buy Assassin's Creed IV, even if I only intended to buy the regular edition, I'm just going to know in advance that there is no Wii U Deluxe version, take that as a personal insult, and know not to support Ubi's treatment of the Wii U as second class? Because that is what is being preemptively argued. This one minor detail is some major factor that the entire Wii U userbase will pick up on and thus not support the port.
Where did I say it would make as much? I honestly just feel like giving up right now.
Regarding PS360 portings (mostly) not happening, there are two reasons:
1. different demographics for your typical western multiplatform game;
2. HUGE install base probably means that, even if there's an audience (and I'm afraid there isn't one), Wii U ports will sell poorly to say the least compared to the other two; by the way, point #1 and/or late, often subpar ports won't help;
This goes for you regular CoD, Assassin's Creed, etc...
Then you have games that IMHO could easily find an audience on Nintendo platforms: those kind of games are usually delayed 6 months even if they were basically going gold, so that by releasing simultaneously they can sell like shit on Wii U due to #2 again. *shrugs*
1. different demographics for your typical western multiplatform game;
2. HUGE install base probably means that, even if there's an audience (and I'm afraid there isn't one), Wii U ports will sell poorly to say the least compared to the other two; by the way, point #1 and/or late, often subpar ports won't help;
This goes for you regular CoD, Assassin's Creed, etc...
Then you have games that IMHO could easily find an audience on Nintendo platforms: those kind of games are usually delayed 6 months even if they were basically going gold, so that by releasing simultaneously they can sell like shit on Wii U due to #2 again. *shrugs*
I guarantee you that launch month for ps4 and x1 they will push more software then Wii U has in the past 4 months. Easily
Snowden's Secret
Banned
I think you're likely off base here, considering Activision repeatedly put CoD on the Wii.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Third parties bailed out after seeing the sales figures.
Does that extend to publishers too?
How do you think they explain this 'bias' to their shareholders?
Why do they release games on Nintendo systems at all? Why not just tell 'em to fuck off? They'd sink Nintendo within a matter of months if they did that. Why aren't they?
Steve Youngblood
Member
What does that have to do with terrible Wii U software sales?
Warm Machine
Member
Had Nintendo come out with a traditional console on par with the Xbox One it would have likely gotten support from day 1 from consumers due to demonstratable increase in hardware power even on straight ports. Probably to PC version levels at 1080p. Also the architecture would have given devs high confidence due to ease of development and porting with even digital only releases being as simple as a UI change and a recompile.
Nintendo also shit the bed by not taking stock of what has been popular or looks to be popular in gaming as a whole and instead has decided to be insular. They should have chased Minecraft down as it speaks to their target demographic, a demographic now entrenched in Xbox as a result. As much shit at MS gets about indies they sure know which indies to look to and lock down. Nintendo doesn't seem to have a brach that does this like they used to in the days of Tetris, Sim City or establishing relations with devs that had cutting edge methods like Argonaut or Rare.
It also doesn't help that Nintendo has an online infrastructure no one would call adequate. It certainly doesn't instill confidence in users with purchase history and continuity of experience.
Nintendo did it to themselves by going the cheap hardware route and in the end saddled themselves with a peripheral that is expensive and doesn't justify the existence of the machine. Had they bit the bullet and spent in a different direction the story would likely be different and there would be a WiiU in my entertainment center.
Nintendo also shit the bed by not taking stock of what has been popular or looks to be popular in gaming as a whole and instead has decided to be insular. They should have chased Minecraft down as it speaks to their target demographic, a demographic now entrenched in Xbox as a result. As much shit at MS gets about indies they sure know which indies to look to and lock down. Nintendo doesn't seem to have a brach that does this like they used to in the days of Tetris, Sim City or establishing relations with devs that had cutting edge methods like Argonaut or Rare.
It also doesn't help that Nintendo has an online infrastructure no one would call adequate. It certainly doesn't instill confidence in users with purchase history and continuity of experience.
Nintendo did it to themselves by going the cheap hardware route and in the end saddled themselves with a peripheral that is expensive and doesn't justify the existence of the machine. Had they bit the bullet and spent in a different direction the story would likely be different and there would be a WiiU in my entertainment center.
That's a much simpler and clearer way to put it. I think this says it all. It's not very complicated.
prag16
Banned
That's obviously a valid point, but a couple things...
The majority of Wii U owners right now are "early adopters" which are generally more knowledgeable than "mainstream" or "late adopters". Not "gaf knowledgeable" but more than the average bear.
As early adopters, it stands to reason that a good chunk of Wii U owners already own PS360PC. So you have knowledgeable (above average at least) gamers who also own another system. Those types of gamers are big drivers are day one sales (the sales Wii U totally missed out on with all its late ports).
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not living in a bubble in which I think Wii U is awesome with a huge user base. I just can't help but notice how many (not really you in particular; you seem more balanced/objective) seem driven to disregard any possible explanation other than "the Wii U is a flaming pile of garbage".
Nintendo created this situation themselves.
Aside from all their other actions one of their largest mistakes with Wii U was the hardware itself. If they wanted ports from PS3 and 360 they needed to create hardware that could facilitate this. The weak CPU is a serious bottleneck that greatly increases the amount of work required.
As far as the future is concerned, the Wii U is once again the odd man out. By targeting next generation platforms you are basically aiming for three platforms including the PC. Developers no doubt want to move on to newer, more powerful hardware and this is their chance. The Wii U simply cannot support these games.
They have hardware that is much less powerful than the upcoming machines and they failed to allow for easy ports from previous generation consoles. Based on their own difficulties developing for their system it seems that they made some poor choices while designing the system. They weren't ready to create HD games and they failed to cater to those who already are while simultaneously missing out on next generation.
If the Wii U had allowed for efficient ports that ran more smoothly than PS3 and 360 versions I definitely believe sales would have been dramatically higher at launch (for those games) which would encourage those companies to continue porting their games. I was hoping to buy games such as Assassin's Creed 3 and Sonic Transformed on Wii U but every single port was plagued with technical problems (or at least inferior to other versions).
The Wii U is the second console to be released under the rule of Iwata and he seems to believe the Wii strategy would work a second time. Nintendo was, at one time, on the cutting edge when it came to new consoles you know. It's shame Iwata felt the need to spit on developers once again. It's no wonder they're giving Nintendo a hard time. They are specifically making their job much more difficult.
scakko84
Member
/thread
Got in to say the exact same thing but without point (d.) and adding a point about lazy late porting of 1/2 years old titles...
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
You are right of course, the Wii U being a flaming pile of garbage is just one of many factors.
GhostTrick
Banned
Oups, I didn't meant to say you said so. You can account this of english not being my primary language
What I meant is that we can't blame if the game bombs on Wii U when it already does bad numbers on a 150 million userbase.
It's also not completely true: how can EA expect decent sales of a late ME3 Wii U port (full price by the way) when there's a trilogy being released for every other platform, for example, is beyond me.
Support simply wasn't there for most of third parties (barring Ubisoft, surprisingly, even if the Rayman Legends mishandling still hurts my brain) even before the first Wii U was shipped.
And please note I'm actually NOT blaming Take2/Rockstar or whatever if they decide not to port GTA V on the Wii U, because I'm 99% confident it actually is a smart business decision, due to different demographics and so on... it's the lack of games that in my opinion could fare slightly better that feels baffling to me.
Diablo Rosso
Member
Nope, all truthfact.
I'd agree that EA is an example of a publisher actively giving Nintendo the cold shoulder.
CosmicQueso
Member
It's impossible to argue with crazy, but here are how many 3rd party retail games were published last gen:
Wii - 1,045
PS3 - 741
Xbox 360 - 928
Yes, true bias here. Staggering bias.
entremet
Member
Yeah, I miss cutting edge Nintendo. I like Iwata, but I'm tired of his gimped hardware approach.
To play devil's advocate, how many of those third party Wii games were shovelware?
Mithos
Member
Flawless.. /thread and all that.
THIS is what Nintendo has to battle against, and will have to battle against for all eternity.
Exactly! It's really quite frustrating. Even the Gamecube, with its limited success, regularly received ports of games available for PS2 and XBOX.
Nintendo is actively antagonizing developers and publishers with their hardware.
AHA-Lambda
Member
First post strikes again.
IMO it's ridiculous to classify stuff like AC3 (two weeks) and CoD (one week) as "late ports" that were somehow worthless, that reeks of damage control.
PS4 and Xbox One are going to be in the same boat with their launch lineup this year - AC4, CoD Ghosts, BF4, NBA 2k14, FIFA 14, Madden 25, and others are all going to be "late ports". Let's see if those all flop too.
PS4 and Xbox One are going to be in the same boat with their launch lineup this year - AC4, CoD Ghosts, BF4, NBA 2k14, FIFA 14, Madden 25, and others are all going to be "late ports". Let's see if those all flop too.
CambriaRising
Member
Post of the thread.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
"but I really feel like some are just incapable of accepting that there aren't enough Wii U owners out there that want to buy Wii U multiplatform games to drive sales into a respectable territory."
If you mean that literally, as in there aren't enough actual Wii U owners, then why would any third party ever put out a game at launch/in the first year? Every console starts with an install base of zero. Also, no publisher would have known Wii U console sales when any of these games started development anyway.
However, your statement doesn't read like one about total numbers of Wii U owners (a weak argument anyway because of the above), but the type of people likely to own a Wii U.
Always-honest
Banned
I have no idea but i also have no desire to buy those games on WiiU.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Yeah. Make no mistake, there is plenty of bad argumentation on the "LOL Nintendo" side of the debate that make arguments that are worth challenging. And honestly, I can see taking issue with some suggestion that third parties rolled up their sleeves, supported the Wii U 110%, and are thus completely right to take their ball and go home knowing that they did everything they could to ensure the Wii U's success. Obviously, that didn't happen, and it would be silly to suggest that it did.
But I think it's also silly when we look at the situation and the argument for why bad sales are entirely the fault of third parties becomes these convoluted "Well, Game A had Problem X and Game B had Problem Y and Game C had Problem Z and..." instead of simply accepting that software is just struggling in general. If third parties had whole-assed their efforts, they'd probably still be disappointed in the results.
Similar threads
- Poll