GhostTrick
Banned
Ah yes the best version with framedrops. Are they really expecting people to pay higher price for shitty version ? Dumb publishers.
-
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.
Wordpress Blog Created Today rumor: Activision pissed with BLOPS 2 Wii U sales
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
darkistheway
Member
I have read countless posts saying that Nintendo should have released a platform that is on par with the other two - power wise. Many posters say that instead of investing R&D and BOM on the touchscreen controller they wished Nintendo had just put in a more powerful GPU.
As has been pointed out, the third party publishers seem to want more powerful consoles so Nintendo 'jiving' with them would put them into an arms race with Sony and Microsoft, which, as pointed out in this thread, is not a good place for Nintendo to be.
I hope you don't mind but I am going to just disregard this completely subjective opinion.
History has shown that even if Nintendo does put their consoles into homes, third party publishers don't really show up. And if they do, they don't bring their AAA game.
Let me try a more constructive post.
3rd party games don't sell on Nintendo platforms and never will again. The last time 3rd party games sold was on the SNES and that simply was because there was no competition. Ever since Playstation came around, Nintendo lost the 3rd parties. For a simple reason, Sony did everything for the 3rd parties (because 3rd party games is all they had) and they created a new market for teens/young adults. On Playstation 3rd parties had no competition from the amazing Nintendo games and the entire console was marketed with their games and target audience in mind.
On N64 3rd party games didn't sell. Nintendo fans bought the console, fans of other games bought a Playstation. On Gamecube 3rd party games didn't sell, fans of non-Nintendo games bought a Playstation 2 or Xbox. On Wii 3rd party games didn't sell, because Nintendo fans bought it and casuals that never bought anything else than Wii Sports. And the same will repeat on Wii U. It's just a different target audience. Nintendo games are targetted at Nintendo fans, a lot in their 30s and younger kids. Playstation and Xbox are targetted at 12-20 year olds, an audience that buys a lot more games and makes Activision happy by buying millions of CoD games.
Nintendo for some reason wanted the "CoDs" on the Wii U again. Obviously those games wont do well, so Nintendo should just fund the ports. That way you wont have developers frustrated like this guy and the library on Wii U is more diverse than just Nintendo games.
3rd party games don't sell on Nintendo platforms and never will again. The last time 3rd party games sold was on the SNES and that simply was because there was no competition. Ever since Playstation came around, Nintendo lost the 3rd parties. For a simple reason, Sony did everything for the 3rd parties (because 3rd party games is all they had) and they created a new market for teens/young adults. On Playstation 3rd parties had no competition from the amazing Nintendo games and the entire console was marketed with their games and target audience in mind.
On N64 3rd party games didn't sell. Nintendo fans bought the console, fans of other games bought a Playstation. On Gamecube 3rd party games didn't sell, fans of non-Nintendo games bought a Playstation 2 or Xbox. On Wii 3rd party games didn't sell, because Nintendo fans bought it and casuals that never bought anything else than Wii Sports. And the same will repeat on Wii U. It's just a different target audience. Nintendo games are targetted at Nintendo fans, a lot in their 30s and younger kids. Playstation and Xbox are targetted at 12-20 year olds, an audience that buys a lot more games and makes Activision happy by buying millions of CoD games.
Nintendo for some reason wanted the "CoDs" on the Wii U again. Obviously those games wont do well, so Nintendo should just fund the ports. That way you wont have developers frustrated like this guy and the library on Wii U is more diverse than just Nintendo games.
There are a bunch of free or cheap pieces of middleware (including Havok?) you have acess to through Sony and Microsoft.
But even if Nintendo were up to speed in this area (and I don't think they are), they definitely lag in helping developers use these tools and get the most out of them.
Yeah. You only have to look at that huge list of PS4 developers to see the gulf between Nintendo and Sony when it comes to 3rd parties. It really isn't going to get any better is it. It's a shame because I like my Wii U, but oh well.
darkistheway
Member
It is an interesting difference for sure.
In the case of the N64, Nintendo really seemed to design their system to achieve Miyamoto's vision for Super Mario 64 (game design over tech). Again, with the Wii, there was a game at launch that demostrated the necessity of the new tech (game design over tech). I think with the Gamecube and the Wii U, that essential game was not there.
The Gamecube appears, to me anyway, to have been designed to match, in power and features, the competing consoles but had no positive differentiating feature (except the amazing controller!). So it was tech for tech's sake.
The Wii U, on the other hand, is more in the Wii space in terms of its differentiating features but lacks the essential game that makes people go 'aha!' Without that game, it will not live up to its potential. It makes me wonder about the design team's goal. It feels like tech for tech's sake and that may be Nintendo's weakness.
Nintendo is in the riskiest position, all they have is videogames. Sony has dozens of other products and MS coasts along to billions in profit each quarter, despite their two Xbox consoles hemorrhaging money, on Windows and Office alone.
Though they haven't really released an edgy console since perhaps the SNES. They never competed directly with their competitors since then, rather choosing odd decisions to differentiate themselves. The N64 stuck to cartridges which gave a massive edge in thirty party relations to Sony just so they could charge an arm and a leg for their storage medium. The gamecube, though technically competent, was designed for a young girl's room. The Wii was far sleeker but relied on a gimmick and utilized archaic graphics technology. This clicked with audiences and it was Nintendo's biggest console success.
The Wii U was an attempt to capture lightning in a bottle again and is so far failing miserably. Is it really riskier to have more competent hardware with a sleek design and reasonable price with Nintendo's roster of games backing it up? We will not know this generation.
Though they haven't really released an edgy console since perhaps the SNES. They never competed directly with their competitors since then, rather choosing odd decisions to differentiate themselves. The N64 stuck to cartridges which gave a massive edge in thirty party relations to Sony just so they could charge an arm and a leg for their storage medium. The gamecube, though technically competent, was designed for a young girl's room. The Wii was far sleeker but relied on a gimmick and utilized archaic graphics technology. This clicked with audiences and it was Nintendo's biggest console success.
The Wii U was an attempt to capture lightning in a bottle again and is so far failing miserably. Is it really riskier to have more competent hardware with a sleek design and reasonable price with Nintendo's roster of games backing it up? We will not know this generation.
You realize the Genesis was far more "edgy" than the SNES? And the NES was looked at as a kid's system? They've always been derided as a kiddy system by every damn competitor they've ever faced.
They'll be fine once they release their major hitters.
EDIT: These guys have been around for 124 years. They're not leaving anytime soon.
It doesn't have to be 5 billion though. They could buy some western support, expand western studios, advertise, added a bit more spec wise to the hardware to make it an obvious jump, support devs by giving them thorough spec details, added an HDD or any number of things. Those wouldn't have broken the bank but would have put them in a more positive light.
If they were focussing on core gamers they should have made a machine and lined up games for them.
I think you underestimate the costs of your advices. Nintendo is already eating a loss with each console sold.
Nintendo should have expanded on the Wii instead of trying to reinvent itself. This way they could have had a console a lot more capable than ps360 at a cheap price. It would have been a really strong cheap alternative to the $399-$499 ps720.
This isn't an option either. Nintendo realizes that the Wiimote is a hindrance for many 3rd parties. That's why they bet on the pad.
Those lists are worthless. Pretty much every licensed PS4 developer is also a licensed Wii U developer. Unless they're first or second party, obviously - but that door swings both ways. Doesn't mean they'll ever actually develop or ship anything for either system.
Agreed. That's why there should be a standard controller too. Like the pro controller now, but more Gamecubey :> But oh well, we are here with the Wii U now.
Remember the 3DS....
I didn't say it was the edgiest, but there was definitely a Nintendo vs. Sega camp. The NES was like 30 years ago and was the only guy on the block. The US version looked modern and sophisticated compared to the famicom.
Having said that, yes...they are 124 years old. They haven't been making videogames that whole time.
I don't think they would have gotten anywhere by just upping transistors and calling it a day. All their recent fortunes have come from offering new controls, not really graphics power.
It's already more capable than the PS3 or 360. Only a minority of devs actually have the budget to do Halo 4, Uncharted etc level graphics. They had a target dev cost and a target price point in mind, especially since they cannot go toe to toe financially with either Sony or MS.
Exactly. There's a lot of developers with Wii U dev kits right now, but they'll probably never use those dev kits unless they get support from the publisher to make a Wii U version.
shinra-bansho
Member
Was there good/comprehensive documentation and support around the use of PhyreEngine?
This is not the first time third parties have done cross generational development.
Global tie ratios seem to disagree with some of the assertions you made here in regards to Wii.
darkistheway
Member
There are so many cool things that could be done with that gamepad. Innovative, system selling things... I really hope those dev kits do get used.
Easy now, don't interrupt the narrative.
Things could get better if they continue to support the console, because as the old generation becomes irrelevant, people are going to decide which platform to go to next - and their choice, among other things, will be also based on whether or not their favorite yearly franchise is available there. So if COD will be on Wii U, some of the former PS360 owners might switch to Nintendo, improving the community numbers, which will further encourage some others to go that way. One missed year though, and this opportunity will be lost. And Activision doesn't want to lose here. It's better if you have your investment spread out more evenly than having it all in one place. Hopefully, Activision suits know this.
shinra-bansho
Member
Out of curiosity; what are the global tie ratios, with regard to third party titles, for the three platforms?
I realise that. The reason for upping the hardware would simple to be able to keep up and do proper HD. The motion controls were a big hit, I'm not sure why Nintendo got rid of it in favour of a big touchscreen controller (yes I know you can still use your wiimotes). I think a Wii 2 where they adress the downsides of Wii 1 would have been a much bigger success.
He's disputing the "casuals that never bought anything else than Wii Sports" bullcrap line.
We've been through this before. Wii owners had no issues buying software, and third-parties didn't sell as much because, for the most part, they just plain didn't bring the software to the platform. Now, they had some significant technical reasons to go that way, but ... this same song and dance has been played out dozens of times. Does it need to be played out again?
I think Opiate is a bit wrong in his assessment actually. Yes, as an industry matures, people discover what works and what doesn't, but occasionally there needs to be someone... something to go for broke to subvert the old model lest the industry become stale and niche. Think about the superhero comic book industry... There were a variety of publishers until it was whittled down to basically two... DC and Marvel. However, without the innovation in that genre, DC's and Marvel's actual comic books have been becoming more and more insular. While Marvel has had a lot more success in adapting their comic book characters lately, their comic book sales and the sales of their competitor DC are becoming more and more niche. DC threatens to be subsumed by the fact that Batman is the only franchise that can be reliably adapted to other mediums and thus the only comics that generally sell outside their niche fanbase. However, thinking outside of superheroes and outside of the worlds defined by DC and Marvel, there is also Archie, Image, Dark Horse, IDW, and Viz, as well as the multiple independent comic book makers and publishers.
Even the example of Cola with Coke and Pepsi being the top dogs ignore the existence of other competitors to the big ones. For example, the creator of RC Cola is still in business... thriving even despite RC Cola being a pale shadow in sales to Coke and Pepsi. They survive by their most famous soft drink catering to a different market than the people who drink cola, even honoring it in their name like Coke and Pepsi do... the Dr Pepper Snapple Group. They survive not by making RC Cola, but by making Dr Pepper. However, they still make RC Cola. Then you've got the store brand colas which cater to the price conscious consumers. Just because they aren't a monolithic force like in the past does not mean that the console business can't still be successful for Nintendo, nor does it mean they can become irrelevant... They just need to do things differently from Sony and Microsoft.
Even the example of Cola with Coke and Pepsi being the top dogs ignore the existence of other competitors to the big ones. For example, the creator of RC Cola is still in business... thriving even despite RC Cola being a pale shadow in sales to Coke and Pepsi. They survive by their most famous soft drink catering to a different market than the people who drink cola, even honoring it in their name like Coke and Pepsi do... the Dr Pepper Snapple Group. They survive not by making RC Cola, but by making Dr Pepper. However, they still make RC Cola. Then you've got the store brand colas which cater to the price conscious consumers. Just because they aren't a monolithic force like in the past does not mean that the console business can't still be successful for Nintendo, nor does it mean they can become irrelevant... They just need to do things differently from Sony and Microsoft.
Can't remember exact numbers, but it was something like 8.5 for xbox, and 7 for both PS3 and Wii.
I think it's safe to assume those aren't CoD and Uncharted type games. But games like Singstar.
He said global third-party tie ratios (for however useful/useless that metric is, as stated above) and not NPD tie ratios for all software.
Oh. Suckered by PR spin, damn.
shinra-bansho
Member
He's disputing the "casuals that never bought anything else than Wii Sports" bullcrap line.
We've been through this before. Wii owners had no issues buying software, and third-parties didn't sell as much because, for the most part, they just plain didn't bring the software to the platform. Now, they had some significant technical reasons to go that way, but ... this same song and dance has been played out dozens of times. Does it need to be played out again?
Oh, I didn't intend to put us back on the merry-go-round; but I thought he might have new data regarding tie ratios that could be interesting.
Yeah, it's very much a PR spin. Nintendo did the same thing prior to the 3DS launch. It's worthless. Thatgamecompany was a licensed Wii developer for example, yet they only developed three PS3 games, all published by Sony. Many development studios acquire licenses and devkits for all platforms just in case.
Blake'sGrave
Member
If I was a Wii U owner, I think I could somehow live without BLOPS 2 as well.
Hopefully this just means Nintendo will start coming up with more new and exciting stuff to fill the void of multi platform release titles.
Hopefully this just means Nintendo will start coming up with more new and exciting stuff to fill the void of multi platform release titles.
I wasn't on the front line of that but PhyreEngine became the basis of our technology for several years, until just recently. We used it across several games and ported it to 360, Wii, PC, Mac, Linux, and PSP (Sony even paid us to do the latter).
I'm not sure of the specifics on docs, but it was free, solid enough, and a flexible license. Good for small and established teams alike in the right circumstances.
We switched away because they made some architectural changes we didn't agree with in the last version jump. We've re-engineered the core to be simpler so our tech is more portable from PS3 through to IPhone.
We are still using PhyreEngine for our "last" console project though (PS3/360/PC).
This, plus: C. The game is not available on the eShop.
My words exactly!
Member
IDK what is more ridiculous... The 3rd party ''support'' that EA had pledged on E3 2011 (remember ''imagine Battlefield on Wi U'' ahahaha) or the same inaccuracies being repeated time after time in regards to Wii and its software sales or tie ratio, by ''gamers'' even though we have cold hard data that shows the truth and contradicts what they say.
On the topic of EA btw... They pulled the same crap with Burnout 3 on the Gamecube and also tried to do it for Timesplitters 3. Thankfully Free Radical pushed on for TS3.
Activision is a good supporter of Nintendo platforms in my book, however it could definitely advertise the Wii U CoD version more. I mean the Wii versions had millions of players total (even yesterday, BO1 had 8.100 people online), surely the U could do better? Nope, that's a byproduct you get with low hardware sales and a bloated pricepoint.
On the topic of EA btw... They pulled the same crap with Burnout 3 on the Gamecube and also tried to do it for Timesplitters 3. Thankfully Free Radical pushed on for TS3.
Activision is a good supporter of Nintendo platforms in my book, however it could definitely advertise the Wii U CoD version more. I mean the Wii versions had millions of players total (even yesterday, BO1 had 8.100 people online), surely the U could do better? Nope, that's a byproduct you get with low hardware sales and a bloated pricepoint.
shinra-bansho
Member
Interesting, thanks.
Mithos
Member
Like I have said before, anyone that expected BLOPS2 to sell like it does on PS360 needs a REALITY CHECK.
When BLOPS3 comes my guesstimate is BLOPS2 Wii U will have sold 1-1.5million copies worldwide (in line with how the CoD games old on Wii).
Considering the numbers that people in here seems to agree upon somewhat, with 10k sold/week its going to hit ~500k if it keeps it up and don't go down or up in sales by November/December 2013, and do we expect BLOPS3 to show up this year or will it be 2014?
Seems to me that it could be following the normal progression of CoD games on Nintendo platforms at the moment.
When BLOPS3 comes my guesstimate is BLOPS2 Wii U will have sold 1-1.5million copies worldwide (in line with how the CoD games old on Wii).
Considering the numbers that people in here seems to agree upon somewhat, with 10k sold/week its going to hit ~500k if it keeps it up and don't go down or up in sales by November/December 2013, and do we expect BLOPS3 to show up this year or will it be 2014?
Seems to me that it could be following the normal progression of CoD games on Nintendo platforms at the moment.
shinra-bansho
Member
What on earth would make you think BLOPS2 is selling 10K per week on the Wii U when the system itself is probably only selling 30-40K per week worldwide?
People want games to play. After time, they'll get bored and buy something. Heh, I'm thinking of picking up Tekken because there's nothing coming out for a few weeks. There are games people can buy if they're desperate enough for a new game to play.
Mithos
Member
Using this as a base.
This gets me ~10k sold/week so far. Or it wouldn't be 100k+ now, if we say BLOPS2 have sold 100k worldwide period, its numbers are a few thousands lower per week.
No what publishers want is a situation where the three consoles are based on PC hardware
(they are) and all 3 are at least somewhat close in terms of power for ease of porting (Nintendo being the odd man out again).
Now developers may be interested in an arms race, publishers don't care.