r700 already supports mutli display support. I dont dee anything that even suggest anything beyond just that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WiiU "Latte" GPU Die Photo - GPU Feature Set And Power Analysis
- Thread starter Thraktor
- Start date
- Status
shinra-bansho
Member
Publisher bias. Poor little Nintendo.
It couldn't be that publishers didn't have confidence in a new platform, with ultimately similar performance to aging platforms suffering from generational fatigue, built around a brand on which their titles didn't sell, aimed at demographics they don't target their high budget software towards.
It couldn't be that publishers didn't have confidence in a new platform, with ultimately similar performance to aging platforms suffering from generational fatigue, built around a brand on which their titles didn't sell, aimed at demographics they don't target their high budget software towards.
lostinblue
Banned
Hence why that's not the only source I listed. But jee, thanks for paying attention.
Most fundamentalistic lines of thought are wrong in the sense that they only see their side of the equation.
Fault probably lies somewhere in the middle, Nintendo is to blame for not designing their systems with developer demands in mind (which in itself is a battle that they couldn't possibly win), their dev tools and documentation and third party relations are not the best out there and they're clearly foreign and known for titles that have a bias to them (cartoony, not adult, etc; which is a line that they'll rarely cross btw); they're also to blame for their differentiating nature lending itself for games done from the ground being the one's that best use the hardware as a whole (touch on the DS, motion on the Wii, extra screen here), ignoring them might seem lazy so most developers will go at it in a forceful (lazy) manner hence finishing up with a tackled-on experience. Developers/Publishers are to blame for not being consistent and sincere regarding their support and intentions, always counting (and hoping) Nintendo out then feeling forced by investors to invest some money in them (if such systems find success) and thus they'll do so, begrudgingly not believing they'll see their money back so they'll go out of their way to neglect it, ensure they have their best team elsewhere, cut development costs as far as humanly possible and avoid wasting marketing dollars on it. That ensures that their worse case scenario becomes true but "hey, at least we didn't invest much money on that!".
Nintendo always needs to double their efforts, and I agree with that, there's lots of errors to be corrected but at least we see them trying (same can't be said for most third parties); but as a difficult relation that this is; the publisher/developer part of the equation also has to want to be on board, and they don't, they secretly wish that Nintendo crashes and burns so they don't have to support them, hence why everytime any Nintendo platform is in trouble of any kind they go out of their way to cancel and walk all over a legacy whose track record is not that of a PSVita. When it happened to PS3 they stood beside it, to a fault; it's true that you earn your loyalty, Microsoft earned Epic loyalty by bowing to their 512 MB of RAM request, they also bought out a lot of DLC and shady moneyhat deals, Sony bows all the time (adding more RAM to PSP, PS4 at developer request even if that bites them in the butt); but it's still kinda impressive seeing not many developers will stand besides Nintendo, I mean they're not supposed to be all that sentimental, they're supposed to be business and see things clearly.
Wii U will probably rebounds just fine, just as 3DS did; it's not even doing that bad, but they're like rats running from a sinking ship this early, it doesn't speak volumes of their commitment, and it's their own damn fault they can't even play a mild convincing poker face, it's not like they were investing big bucks anyway.
lostinblue
Banned
Me neither. I don't see interest in even providing current gen software.
If it sells they might do some "experiments" as per usual, but coming late and not all out on said markets makes them sitting ducks, as always.
Well, there's difference between cross platform and late porting; cross platform tends to be cheaper as you have the production pipeline up and running so you hit less roadblocks, or rather you might hit them but since you're doing it alongside you'll just channel resources to it. Plus the code is fresh enough that you're not wondering "why was this written like this?" typical of late ports done in the middle of other odd jobs or outsourced.
Anyway, at most cross platform in-house porting should cost at most an extra 4 million, these are old figures (2/3 years old) that I remember though, costs might have decreased since. Ubisoft claims their budget for Wii U ports is 1.3 Million.
Said number is for simultaneous cross platform with no palpable tailor made asset/content improvements, late porting is bound to make it a little pricier, as does extra content or making the title appear better, as seen in Need for Speed Most Wanted. Still they're using assets they already had (PC assets) and doing it inhouse so it should be no biggie.
There have been a few games announced for systems with no mention of WiiU support only for us to find out later that they're WiiU bound. For instance lots of people assumed Watch Dogs wasn't coming and used that to claim that WiiU would have no third party support. Same thing happened with Call of Duty AFAIR. Lets not jump to conclusions again.
This is different.
Games are getting announced for an unreleased console (PS4) and not getting announced for a released console (WiiU).
Fair enough, though I'm not sure that publishers necessarily care if the system is released or not. Anyway, if/when one of these games is announced for WiiU then hopefully we can stop the "this game isn't announced for WiiU, third party support is dead" assumptions.
shinra-bansho
Member
Paranoia, paranoia; everybody's coming to get me.
Third parties have no obligation to "stand behind Nintendo." They do not care where they sell their games, as long as they sell their games. They did not stand behind the PS3; they were already in too deep to back out.
Apathy towards Nintendo, Nintendo's philosophy or Nintendo's systems doesn't equate to sabotage. Not putting their titles on the Wii U doesn't equate to willing Nintendo's demise. They do not see a market; they do not see a return.
And they will not incur the risk of creating a market when there are alternative platforms on which they can sell their software.
The worst January NPD of a console launch in recent memory, sub-10K in less weeks than Vita, likely selling less than 10K a month in the UK. I'm not sure what your definition of "that bad" is given the situation - but any publisher that was on board before jumping ship would be entirely justified in doing so. While every publisher who didn't jump in, would be relatively vindicated.
PSV will rebound, just look at PS3. Or not. Although if people want to keep pretending the 3DS situation is analogous, more power to them.
ArchangelWest
Member
I don't think UK numbers will be that low anymore considering Lego City is releasing very soon, and they are going crazy waiting for it. As always, games will bring people around. Everyone has a different trigger. Since Nintendo didn't communicate or market well enough or even provide optimal dev tools initially with Wii U, it's going to take more time than is ideal to get the ball rolling well.
That being said, after Need For Speed, how easy it was, and what they were able to accomplish, I think more developers will come sniffing around again. Though of course, some will hunker down, work on concepts without actually committing to games, then go for it once the system hits its stride. Which of course means that Nintendo will have to bring out the big guns earlier than they had planned or risk failure.
That being said, after Need For Speed, how easy it was, and what they were able to accomplish, I think more developers will come sniffing around again. Though of course, some will hunker down, work on concepts without actually committing to games, then go for it once the system hits its stride. Which of course means that Nintendo will have to bring out the big guns earlier than they had planned or risk failure.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
I agree the future of the Wii U looks grim, but why do you think the PSV will rebound like the PS3, but the Wii U won't rebound like the 3DS?
Imho, both systems seem equally "doomed". The success of the PS3 and 3DS can't tell us anything besides any system can overcome extreme negativity and eventually flourish.
Edit: Sorry, this is way off topic, isn't it :/
Broken Logic
Neo Member
If your comparing the chances of a Vita bounce back to a Wii U bounce back, you've got to look at why those example consoles (Ps3 and 3ds respectively) bounced back, specifically the differences. The ps3 just kept getting third party (on top of first party of course) games until eventually it was a pretty good deal. The 3DS bounced back because Nintendo finally released a whole lot of their first party games (and price drop) which spawned interest, despite third party hesitation. Sony's success is pretty dependent on third parties, while Nintendo is less so. So if Vita gets enough games, eventually it might look like a good platform and pick up. With Wii U, I'd place my stakes on their first party pinch hitters (and inevitable price drop XD).
Also: I feel bad for joining in on the off topic stuff
Also: I feel bad for joining in on the off topic stuff
shinra-bansho
Member
The regular topic seems pretty dead anyway. The 3DS consolidated the dedicated handheld market onto a single platform; receiving both first- and third-party key titles. The Wii U will not eat up the home console market in the same way simply by releasing a Mario Kart game.
I don't think the PSV will rebound. Similarly, I don't think the Wii U is in an analogous situation to the 3DS.
Lol. Remain relevant implies it's still relevant.
JohnnySasaki86
Member
I don't think PSV will be doomed no matter what cause Sony looks like its in it for the long haul with the system, with the integration there doing between it and PS4. So long as PS4 doesn't go the way of the dodo, I think PSV will remain relevant.
I think Wii U will remain relevant just the way GC did, because of the first party support. Thats a worst case scenario IMO, but I would agree its looking more and more likely everyday.
I think Wii U will remain relevant just the way GC did, because of the first party support. Thats a worst case scenario IMO, but I would agree its looking more and more likely everyday.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
Oh, OK. I misunderstood.
walking fiend
Member
3DS rebounded almost 100% because of the price drop and 1st party releases; both are almost 100% guaranteed to happen with the Wii U as well.
snowdog1971
Banned
Those of you criticising the state of the Wii U's third party support might want to wait for the Nintendo Direct entirely dedicated to third party titles. It's had pretty good third party support so far with regards to its launch titles with the likes of ZombiU, Assassin's Creed III, Scribblenauts Unlimited, Darksiders 2, Arkham City and Black Ops 2. There's a bit of a drought but we've got Lego City Undercover and Monster Hunter on the way this month. It's hardly a disaster.
We've also got E3 in a few months too.
We've also got E3 in a few months too.
lostinblue
Banned
As always I agree to disagree. I disagree that I'm creating a conspiracy theory of any sort though, as I said it's conjecture.
Perhaps it's the situation where a successor to a market leader (Wii) has no backing support whatsoever whilst PS4, bound to be overpriced due to it's specs alone is getting more support from the get go, do developers and publishers actually think it's gonna do better at launch? (then again Wii U problems are tied to lack of software that they aren't providing) It's the whole mindset of preferring to run to a house on fire (riskier/more expensive) before supporting a Nintendo on a controlled risk basis. No one is even asking for prioritary support, just coherent enough and not inexisting or second rate, in short: appropriate.
Plus developers/publishers should behave like Nike does for sports, most of the time they won't drop people they're endorsing; why? because they should be in too deep with them. And if they have nothing good to say regarding something, then say nothing.
The bad thing about this industry is everybody has an opinion, and they'll use their position on whatever company they work on as a stepping stone to make it be heard and as a fallacy as for what they're oh so right.
Perhaps the thing will flop, but even in the face of the possibility of succeeding third party's are not trying at all. There's no shame in failing, there's shame in not trying. Nintendo has a problem with third parties, a problem that can't be solved in one generation and a problem of bias (yes, I've said it) but the real problem is that despite the fact that the errors of one behalf can't be ignored, the other half of the problem isn't trying at all. We'll then they can't complain when the market isn't there; they build their own damn market after all.
And as "they don't owe Nintendo nothing" then again EA is clearly being very childish at this point, which is exactly my point; no they don't owe Nintendo anything, but they're also too sentimental on their own agendas.
Everybody is too sentimental to see things straight in this industry, starting with everyone pushing for the AAA bermuda triangle ex-libris of bankruptcy™.
And yet it sold 3 million until December 31st 2012. I'm not saying it's great or anything, I'm saying that's already half what X360 and PS3 did across their first 12 months on the market, and we know the market really isn't as healthy as it was back then.
It's not about jumping in, it's about pulling the plug, and having more faith in stuff that will be way more expensive in a industry that has problems with perceived value.
3DS, Vita, Wii U, the "informed" consumer that used to jump from hoops and loops to get the product at launch now knows that sales will slow down, a software drought will happen and then, when the good games are coming, a pricedrop will come, because they gave the company no choice. They'll just do the same for every product out there, unless there's Halo 5 and Killzone 4 at launch. Part of the business model modus operandi isn't working, but it's too late to change it for this generation, it's literally a matter of bracing for impact.
Erm... Nintendo took measures when 3DS situation hit relative rock bottom.
Sony has been letting Vita uncover new rocky bottoms for quite a while. But sure, it might rebound and regain some traction, but that doesn't change that it's launch was a spectacular fiasco with no plan B in sight. For one they made the whole pack so expensive that they can't officially pricedrop it still.
Not a good situation to be in, always reminds me of Sega Saturn and how not being able to compete on pricedrops/cost reduction served as a nail.
Yes, it's not as simple for Wii U.
For the type of games that I want I kinda hope it attracts RPG's and japanese games (as well as niche and more experimental titles, I'm a sucker for those), simply because I don't want them all on 3DS nor do I think AAA of the AAA's is the way to go for them; I mean we're still waiting on Versus XIII and I'm guessing it'll be style over substance.
I'm a fan of the 18 month production pipeline that it took to do Persona 4 and other PS2 titles. (and it saddens me that it was nowhere to be seen this generation).
The only reason people are saying Wii U third party support is terrible and non existent is because it's not getting every game that's getting released.
It's going to take time for Nintendo to rebuild relationships and get third party's to stop treating them like the unwanted kid at a birthday or something.
shinra-bansho
Member
Market leader for whom? Not third parties.
The PS4 and 720 get support by virtue of the 720 and PS4 respectively; collectively they comprise a greater potential market for publishers' titles than the Wii U.
The Wii U's woes are entirely of Nintendo's creation. They're the ones arriving 7 years LTTP.
"Appropriate"? What obligation does any publisher have to develop for the Wii U? There's a greater addressable market already available.
There's no shame in not trying. There's no onus to try.
Again, there is no onus to build a market. There's already an addressable market. It falls on Nintendo, because it's their platform.
I'm not even sure what this means. EA has business drivers for their platform decisions. "Let's help Nintendo out." Isn't a business driver.
It shipped 3M at the end of last quarter. To the end of this quarter it will not sell through that shipment.
They have more faith in Sony and Microsoft to appeal to the demographics and build the markets that buy their games. It isn't rocket science.
You're blaming consumers for being wary of new products - when Nintendo admittedly price-gouged with their last product and then dropped the price by a third?
Measures could be taken when the 3DS was ailing. The price was inflated, ergo a price cut could be made. The Wii U is purportedly already loss-leading.
Games could be churned out relatively quickly for the 3DS. Nintendo is presumably suffering the same setbacks every other developer, particularly Japanese developers, have had in transitioning to HD development.
And the 3DS had major third party support on board, some of it exclusively. Resident Evil. Metal Gear. Kingdom Hearts. Dragon Quest. And Monster Hunter. It sucked all the air out of Vita's collapsing lungs.
Cf. Wii U to PS360. GTAV. Bioshock Infinite. Tomb Raider.
Cf. Wii U to PS4/720. Destiny. The Witcher 3. Thief 4.
Nintendo can not consolidate the market onto Wii U like the 3DS did in order to recover. Ergo, expecting a 3DS-like recovery is unfounded. Can it do better than it currently is with more first-party software - sure. It would be hard to do worse.
How long though? A generation? It may get to the point quite early that third parties don't care. Especially if 720/PS4 take off well. There is a MASSIVE, and I mean MASSIVE market for the AAA pubs to sell their games to. 160 million HD twins + however 720/PS4 do. Sony and MS have a proven track record over the last generation or two. Nintendo has a negative one that goes way back to the days of the N64 and no matter what they say, it's obvious they don't really give a damn.
Every Wii U thread turns into a "Wii U is/isn't doomed" thread.
I want a Wii U model to look just like that. Would be kinda neat.
Zoramon089
Banned
theman5141
Neo Member
It's probably safe to say that we're looking at a 20% increase in CPU clock and maybe 10% GPU, which brings us up to par with the alleged speeds of these respective components in the final retail unit.
Weren't we already at V5 at some point? I'm confused.
I slight difference in clockspeeds and performance....up or down?
Ah, I guess finally some "news".
(How about a teardown of the devkit? If we see what has changed on the inside versus the final product, perhaps we might have more clues.)
DragonKnight
Member
For some of you guys nintendo really can do no wrong.
Eh? And where did this comment come from? This is clearly a technical discussion, not a "right" or "wrong" debate.
DragonKnight
Member
Talking about lost in blue.
Now the figure may no longer be correct now (hell, it may be my memory being foggy), but iirc as of 2011 third parties sold more software on Wii by volume than either of the HD twins. Unfortunately, most of it was probably garbage because there wasn't very much real effort there.
Without the ability to look up figures currently, however, if you take global tie ratios into account (and how close all 3 systems are in that regard), the console certainly sold more software in general.
Actually, the Wii U is the first home console of the new generation - and whether they put out a box with an atari 2600 processor, or an i7 with a Titan the system would still be a part of this new generation. Conversely, even if it's an i7+Titan box with a 360 controller but a Nintendo OS, it's likely that some third parties still wouldn't find that the ROI that their bean counters want in regards to releasing complete content parity.
you know what saddens me about the images of those dev-kits? There's a ethernet port! why couldn't they have kept that on there for the final product!? Nintendo your breaking my balls right now.
Oh and Wii U and Vita are struggling because their price is much higher than the average customer's perception of their value (not only reason but probably one of the major ones). Nobody yet feels that the Wii U is worth the $300-350 price point it's charging, and nobody feels the Vita is worth the $250+ price point it's charging. Part of that has to do with shallow game libraries, part of it just the cost itself.
So there's one of two options. Either Nintendo/Sony will have to find a way to convince customers that it's product is worth the price (with games/apps, advertising, etc) or drop the price of the consoles.
As for the topic itself. I thought it was all but confirmed it wasn't a RV700 (or even a customized version of it) or whatever since the latte/espresso (which ever one is the gpu) looked nothing like it. I also only sorta followed the thread so I could be mistakened
So there's one of two options. Either Nintendo/Sony will have to find a way to convince customers that it's product is worth the price (with games/apps, advertising, etc) or drop the price of the consoles.
As for the topic itself. I thought it was all but confirmed it wasn't a RV700 (or even a customized version of it) or whatever since the latte/espresso (which ever one is the gpu) looked nothing like it. I also only sorta followed the thread so I could be mistakened
shinra-bansho
Member
That would either mean that Nintendo sold far less first-party software than the strength of their portfolio suggests; or Sony and Microsoft sold far more first-party software than given credit.
And yes, the lack of sales is in part third parties fault - as they didn't put their titles on the system - which leads us to why they didn't, because for a lot of their titles they couldn't.
What global tie ratios? We only have software shipment information for Sony and Nintendo.
I meant, by that comment, that there's a 160M installed base for the other two systems. Nintendo releasing a system similar in capabilities now should not expect parity of support.
Angel Whispers
Member
RUBBISH. I'm sorry, but it is. 150K/2.5M would still be 6% of the Wii U user base, while 100K/2.5M is 4% - Those figures don't seem much, but please consider that many cross-platform games fail/have failed to sell to more than 2-3% of combined PS360 user bases, and that's when each version was released at the same time. Assassin's Creed 3 wasn't delayed to release at the same time as the Wii U version at launch (could've performed better that way, because Off-TV play is appealing?) - When the shoe is on Nintendo's foot, Ubisoft and other cross-platform development houses don't care a shit, but they will happily delay a finished Nintendo game to release lesser versions on other consoles and sour any good relations with Nintendo fans who would've invested in their game, let alone people who invested in a Wii U for it. The loss of exclusivity wasn't the problem at all, yet much of the gaming media went for that angle, ignorant of the fact that even Ubisoft employees didn't support that decision. Relationships are a two-way street, yet instead of meeting halfway, Ubisoft decided to step off the bridge. As for COD, most people bought it on other platforms, and so far, the Wii U version hasn't had the extra content - Why should Wii U owners buy it when they won't have the chance to play any of that? Future versions will do better if they aren't released late, but it's known that it is most popular among X360 owners. They won't do much better if they don't get all the content that the others have. These are faults of the cross-platform houses' making, NOT the Nintendo fans, and how they find the nerve to absolve themselves of all responsibility, I don't know - the fans don't deserve to and shouldn't bear that cross. Nice try, but I don't see any warning signs there at all.
Both you and the developers aren't taking into account the fact that those games were released earlier on other platforms. When the Wii U versions launched, some retailers had reductions on those games while charging full price for the Wii U one. After that, Nintendo fans will buy the game if it is a port job done well - Sonic&ASRT has been top of the Wii U charts for the last fortnight; it is a job done well, and fans rewarded the effort - it is the first cross-platform game to top the Wii U charts. See Trine 2: Director's Cut, too - Frozenbyte have said they were very happy with the sales performance, even coming on here to state clearly what they meant when sections of NeoGAF were twisting the comments as PR and reaching in desperation to further their anti-Nintendo agenda.
The tragedy for Criterion is that many would've bitten on other versions because it wasn't apparent that Need For Speed was coming at all, and, of course, the other versions were released earlier - that said, they can expect better results in future endeavours because they have the final kits and will be able to release Wii U versions of games at the same time as others. As long as they continue in the same spirits (getting to know the system and pushing it further), Nintendo fans will recognise that and want to support them as well as they can.
Rayman Legends may not perform as well as it could have done on the Wii U, but Ubisoft have only themselves to blame for that. It doesn't matter that the Wii U version is by far the best version - much of the gaming press has been talking down the console from day one, and there was plenty of port-begging on here and other sites which was allowed to slide because the idea that Nintendo fans could have nice things from somewhere other than Nintendo themselves was unthinkable. They bitched that they had to invest in a new console to play what were exclusive games, but had they been announced for PS4 release, they would be coughing up even more for a new console, anyway... Yeah, how dumb and pathetic. There are no words to describe the gall and sense of entitlement of such people.
There's a lot to be said about Nintendo fans and the 'third party myth' (that their games don't sell on Nintendo consoles). To take Sonic&ASRT again, that game has the highest sale-user base ratio of all the consoles. In the past, more people bought Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition (a 2 year old game at the time, by the way), than Bayonetta on PS360 consoles combined - yet here we are wondering why Capcom didn't support the Wii U better at launch, or bring Resident Evil 6 to it, and Nintendo fans will enjoy Bayonetta 2 because PS360 fans didn't support the first one well enough - it was no surprise that Nintendo secured that game as an exclusive, and I feel that this is one of the best long-term approaches they could adopt with their new console.
Those that didn't do their port jobs well were very rightly rejected, then there are incompetent business decisions - Mass Effect 3 is a rip-off, especially when it's released next to a trilogy on other consoles. Nintendo fans are sick and tired of being treated as tenth-rate, with shoddy, rushed port jobs, patronising 'test' games or being snubbed. The so-called 'third parties' have no more excuses - if the Wii U doesn't get future 8th Gen games, it will be fuck all to do with a lack of power (it's powerful enough, in the way that Dreamcast and PS2 could have GameCube and XBox games), it'll be because the developers didn't want their games there.
You nailed it. Developers and Publishers are very stupid and Nintendo really has little to nothing to do with it.
The ethernet port isn't part of the Wii U system itself, it's part of the bridge. It's used to connect the devkit to the host PC.
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
It's still an infuriating and stupid decision not to have included an ethernet port.
Business math: How much does it cost, how many people need it, what's the alternative?
Adding the feature as a standard would increase the price by 1 - 2 dollar per unit. Most people will never use it, and the alternative is an USB-LAN bridge that costs less than ten bucks (Nintendo branded is a bit more expensive of course, but you can use any bridge based on a supported chipset). Not adding an ethernet port as standard therefore benefits both Nintendo and the majority of their customers, and doesn't really hurt the people who need wired LAN.
freezamite
Banned
¿Sorry? Not only the WiiU has sold more systems during the same period, but it's the first system of it's generation (in terms of third party support, it's not the same to ignore a 5-10 million userbase when the competition has 15-20 million of unit sold than doing it when the competition has yet to release its systems) and has more titles and strong franchises planned on it before the competition even releases their systems than the PSVita will have during its entire lifespan.
Let's be serious. WiiU hasn't been the hit everyone was expecting, but it's not even close to be at the same level of Vita.
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
What's the price of the goodwill lost by omitting such basic features to save a tiny percentage amount?
Close to zero, as hardly anybody gives a fuck?
Should´ve done some more business math for the rest of the hardware.
Well said, man. It pisses me off to think that the players get blamed for stupid decisions on their part...especially the Mass Effect 3 situation. If they had no intentions of supporting the game properly, then they shouldn't have even bothered. Yet, even players say it's the Wii U owner's fault for not buying the game. That's just flat out wrong. Why should a Wii U owner buy the Wii U version of Mass Effect 3? If EA didn't care about the game, then it's not on the players to do so.
Still, good post.
snowdog1971
Banned
Excellent post. Another thing that should be noted regarding the sales of Assassin's Creed III, Sonic Racing and other titles (with the exception of Black Ops 2 due to a bad decision from Activision) is that we know that the sales figures are higher than those given by the likes of NPD etc due to digital sales from the eShop.
Can't understand it myself because they're all way overpriced compared to retail purchases but you see comments all the time on Miiverse from people that have bought these games from the eShop. Activision have lost a fair few sales by not making Black Ops 2 available digitally.
Shin Johnpv
Member
The poster makes some fairly valid points and rather then address any of them you just dismiss him with one sentence.
You nailed it. Nintendo is very stupid and 3rd parties have little to nothing to do with how their games sell on Nintendo platforms....
No one is saying Nintendo is 100% not to blame here. What people are saying is that if 3rd parties pulled the shit they do on Nintendo platforms on say a Sony or MS one, they would get similar results and that they need to take some responsibility for their choices.
The PS3 had pretty horrible 3rd party and overall software sales at it's launch. What did 3rd parties do? They just kept pushing forward and hoping for sales to improve, and hey they did. When the same happens on Wii U, it's suddenly OH SHIT CANCEL ALL THE GAMES! 3rd parties need to take some form of responsibility for sales of their games on Nintendo platforms.
They pull the same shit they have since the GC, release ports 6 months or more later, for full price when other versions are cheaper, some times missing features and wonder why they don't sell as well.
It's almost like there's this concept, that if we release it, in what ever state they have to buy it. If I go to the store and my money can be spent on either game X, that the developer isn't giving me the pre-order DLC on, and won't even give me a time frame, or a definitive answer on if it's coming at all, or game Y that is being treated the same as the other platforms, I'm probably picking game Y.
This isn't 20 - 30 years ago, where your choices of new releases were much more narrow. In this day and age there are SO MANY games released, on all platforms, that it is insanely easy to just say no to a half assed port. There is so much competition for your gaming dollar on ALL of the platforms, that to release anything that is considered half assed, or lacking from the other versions is begging for poor sales.
How stupid is it, to take a game like Rayman, which the previous version didn't see too hot of sales on any platform. Take it from releasing to a game starved launch audience, where even games like Red Steel can sell a million copies, and move it down to the busiest and most competitive period for game launches.
When Rayman on Wii U fails to meet sales goals, how is that Nintendo's fault?
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
shinra-bansho
Member
Why do people keep pretending that the PS3 and the Wii U can be considered analogous in their situations.
The PS3 came off the back of the PS2, which proved highly successful, not only for Sony, but for the third party publishers on it as well. Publishers had already invested heavily into HD engines and development. Publishers had already invested heavily into PS3 development. They needed the PS3 to recover to provide a collectively larger market with the XBOX 360 for their HD development.
The Wii U does not have that pedigree with third party publishers. Third party publishers haven't heavily invested in Wii U development.
Because they do not see the need to. They have a 160M installed base to cater to already. And they have two systems they are investing in that provide a technical generational improvement.
There are opportunity costs to consider in platform decisions. If the resources needed to make a Wii U SKU would provide a better return elsewhere, they will be devoted elsewhere.
Nintendo, and its fans seemingly, have to realise that Nintendo needs third party publishers more than they need Nintendo.
Then buy an adapter. Any adapter with an ASIX AX88772 chipset works.I do
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll