Just Cause 2 Developer Says Wii U Dev Kits Are "Collecting Dust"

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I wonder if any of the console makers are looking at this and suddenly realizing the downside to required always on internet consoles. The development houses can now ask and have a reasonable expectation of an answer;
- Exactly How Many Registered Consoles are out there?
- How many have been used in x time frame?
Because guess what. Everytime these suckers fire up they will be calling home to momma. And that would suddenly become data that the console makers can't mask with BS sales numbers. Karma's a byotch ain't it.

In the case of the WiiU nintendo has some really high hurdles. Look at it from the 3rd party developer houses;
- PS4 dev kit... IT'S A PC! NO REALLY IT'S AN x86 PC! The only thing even mildly exotic (that any developer will bother to use) is that little touchy pad thing on the controller... WHICH IS A MOUSE! Most Dev houses can program for this console drunk... and will.

- XBoxWHATEVERTHEHELLTHEYCALLIT... The XBox has always been "PC Like" But now... IT'S A PC! No really! x86 CPU, PC GPU etc etc. The studio intern can port back and forth between the PS4 and XBoxWHOCARESWHATTHEYCALLITATTHISPOINT in about an afternoon. Most exotic thing is the Kinnect gizmo, which they may or may not simply ignore, and they have been messing with PC API's for for years now.

- WiiU; Ummm? WTF is this thing? Weird CPU/GPU. Underpowered, low memory for the generation (granted better than PS3). Limited guaranteed storage (yeah you can plug a usb drive in, but the devs can't predict if the customer will do that or count on it. Bad design decision!) And the showstopper. The core gimmick of the system, the weird iPad type controller thingy. It's more complicated to program for. Yet only 1 player can really use it, meaning multiplayer games not only support asymetric design, they require it. And designing stuff around it means you can't port to another console, you pretty much have to go from scratch. Without some massive install base, why would a third party developer go anywhere near this thing?

Aiddon:

KungFuJazzHands:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
OT: It's slightly disingenous to say that the Wii U won't be able to run Frostbite 3, given that all DICE said was that they did a few preliminary tests, and that the console is already running similar engines like Cryengine 3 just fine.

DICE never said that the WiiU was unable to run Frostbite, they said it ran very poorly. They were talking about Frostbite 2, BTW. Also, CryEngine is highly scalable, while FB is not -- making comparisons between the two in the context of porting over to the WiiU is a bit disingenuous.

So basically they made a VERY shitty engine that is made exclusively for tech-porn. That's kinda shortsighted.

Undoubtedly. That doesn't mean we should excuse the WiiU's paltry hardware specs, however. There's enough blame in this mess to pass around to all parties involved.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Atmos Duality:

FFP2:
Once Q4 is over I'm pretty sure the Wii U sales would have increased dramatically. They seem to be releasing a shitload of stuff just in time for the holidays.

And during that time, nobody other than Nintendo is going to be developing for the WiiU, creating that wonderful gap in competition that will let the PS4 and Xbox/Durango/Infinity go uncontested.

Because it's not like Ubisoft, Capcom, Disney, Activision et al aren't currently working on Wii U games. Nope, no siree.

Let's see how many survive that. Just with those names you put up alone there's very little hope.

Ubisoft- Makes the only 3rd party game to significantly use the tablet controller. Doesn't sell well. Removes exclusivity from Rayman Legends.

Capcom- Cancels Megaman Legends 3 for the 3DS due to poor sales. Puts Monster Hunter 3 on the Wii U and 3DS. The game currently isn't selling well, not even 1/4 as well as that franchise has sold on the PSP for crying out loud. They also recently announced that they are going to focus on Virtual Console releases for the Wii U. Hardly a system selling strategy.

Disney- are you really expecting quality gaming from Disney? Epic Mickey 1&2 were both pretty meh, and last time I checked Disney's development studio was significantly cut back. The closed the devs for Epic Mickey and the racing game I'm to lazy to Google.

Activision- Are you for real? have you seen what games are upcoming from them? Angry Birds, Caleb's Big Game Hunting, movie tie in games, Pro Bass Fishing, Skylanders?

Along with the fact that Activision saying that the Wii U's launch has them worried:http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/191963/Weak_Wii_U_console_transition_have_Activision_wary_for_2013.php

The 4 companies you have listed don't make the most solid case for developers that are "raring to make games" for the Wii U. Your optimism is sometimes amusing at times Jeffers but this is getting to be a little much.

Not even Metal Gear Solid 3 on the 3DS could sell well. 3rd party developers got bend over a table and had their cheeks spread involuntarily with the Wii and that thing sold very well, so a bad selling Nintendo console would be like poison to 3rd party devs right now.

It's like watching the Sega Saturn all over again.

KungFuJazzHands:

Undoubtedly. That doesn't mean we should excuse the WiiU's paltry hardware specs, however. There's enough blame in this mess to pass around to all parties involved.

Oh hell no, I can completely excuse the Wii U's specs as Nintendo actually uses them for GAMEPLAY rather than just tech-porn. It just disappoints me that 3rd parties have rendered themselves incapable of lateral thinking. I guess I'll blame Nintendo for putting too much faith in the current crop of devs.

Lol I like how they are saying it's unusable because the games they are going to be making are too advanced... yet in every other story about next-gen games we hear they are far too expensive to sustain. This guy might be surprised at how appealing making games for the wiiU looks after they realize they can't make a profit off of PS4 and Xbox Infinity games; especially once those consoles launch and prove they will have a near equally small user base because good games arn't abundant yet.

faefrost:
I wonder if any of the console makers are looking at this and suddenly realizing the downside to required always on internet consoles. The development houses can now ask and have a reasonable expectation of an answer;
- Exactly How Many Registered Consoles are out there?
- How many have been used in x time frame?
Because guess what. Everytime these suckers fire up they will be calling home to momma. And that would suddenly become data that the console makers can't mask with BS sales numbers. Karma's a byotch ain't it.

In the case of the WiiU nintendo has some really high hurdles. Look at it from the 3rd party developer houses;
- PS4 dev kit... IT'S A PC! NO REALLY IT'S AN x86 PC! The only thing even mildly exotic (that any developer will bother to use) is that little touchy pad thing on the controller... WHICH IS A MOUSE! Most Dev houses can program for this console drunk... and will.

- XBoxWHATEVERTHEHELLTHEYCALLIT... The XBox has always been "PC Like" But now... IT'S A PC! No really! x86 CPU, PC GPU etc etc. The studio intern can port back and forth between the PS4 and XBoxWHOCARESWHATTHEYCALLITATTHISPOINT in about an afternoon. Most exotic thing is the Kinnect gizmo, which they may or may not simply ignore, and they have been messing with PC API's for for years now.

- WiiU; Ummm? WTF is this thing? Weird CPU/GPU. Underpowered, low memory for the generation (granted better than PS3). Limited guaranteed storage (yeah you can plug a usb drive in, but the devs can't predict if the customer will do that or count on it. Bad design decision!) And the showstopper. The core gimmick of the system, the weird iPad type controller thingy. It's more complicated to program for. Yet only 1 player can really use it, meaning multiplayer games not only support asymetric design, they require it. And designing stuff around it means you can't port to another console, you pretty much have to go from scratch. Without some massive install base, why would a third party developer go anywhere near this thing?

...I'm slightly confused by this post. Are you saying in the first part that Always Online is a bad thing? That Nintendo is a bad thing? That consoles are a bad thing? I'm confused with the sentencing. Because if I take the next three paragarphs into account without acknowledging the 1st you seem to be implying that the Nintendo is failing because it's trying to be as far away from being a PC as possible. If this is what you are saying, I'm don't see how making a console like a PC is going to help as I already have a good PC and a good PC isn't hard to build/buy and it has more uses than a console.

However, if the first paragraph changes what you mean than I'm still confused.

xPixelatedx:
Lol I like how they are saying it's unusable because the games they are going to be making are too advanced... yet in every other story about next-gen games we hear they are far too expensive to sustain. This guy might be surprised at how appealing making games for the wiiU looks after they realize they can't make a profit off of PS4 and Xbox Infinity games; especially once those consoles launch and prove they will have a near equally small user base because good games arn't abundant yet.

Seems like either you can predict the future or you're pulling a good chunk of what you just said out of where the sun don't shine. I'm not saying that the PS4/Next Box will crush the Wii U in sales, I personally think that this upcoming gen will be the overall lowest selling for everyone.

But you can't possibly know this well in advance that games won't profit on the PS4/Next Box. That and to be frank, the PS4 does have a pretty promising series of launch titles. The Last of Us, Destiny, and what looks to be the best looking/running version of Watch Dogs alone spell some trouble for the Wii U. Then there are the 3rd party games that won't be on the Wii U.

Point is, its foolish to claim something like "PS4/NextBox games won't make a profit". Especially when we see games on Nintendo platforms either being cancelled or being made multiplatform due to low sales.

And really think here, 3rd party devs have a better chance with the PS/MS console because they can sell games on both console and not have to deal with the remnant effects of Nintendo's extreme family oriented marketing. Seriously, that was a major determent to 3rd party devs on the Wii. If it wasn't family oriented, it struggled to sell let alone be heard of. That marketing carried over when they called the Wii U exactly that.

3rd party devs don't have to worry about PS/MS first party games as much as they do a Mario title.

I said this earlier in the thread. Nintendo's Wii U is mirroring the Sega Saturn. Good console, but due to previous business practices, the 3rd party is licking their wounds. If history repeats itself we'll see a major publisher publicly say they won't make games for the Wii U. Just like EA did to Sega.

StewShearer:
Perhaps more threatening for Nintendo's third party efforts, are the Wii U's lackluster sales. Avalanche Studios, the developer behind Just Cause 2, for instance, has recently indicated that the Wii U's user base isn't large enough for them to invest in development for the console. "We actually had some development kits that just collected dust," said Avalanche founder, Christofer Sundberg. " It's a bit sad, because we wanted to do something. I think it is a cool platform, but right now it's not just up to us. We want the game to reach as many as possible."

And this shows why AAA developers are idiots.

Because the primary reason the Wii U is not selling well is....wait for it....a lack of good games.

So basically you're complaining that the console has so few sales so it's not worth developing for, not understanding that if you DID develop for it, then the console would have a better roster of games and people would be more inclined to buy it. It's a symbiotic relationship here, guys: you make good games, console sells well, allowing you to sell more games (which in turn means the console sells even more, and so on in a cyclical fashion). This isn't hard to understand, and in a proper capitalist system, that's how it works: when you invest in risky ventures, sometimes they pay off big-time and sometimes they don't. But if you always go "safe", you can't expand and grow. You become stagnant and stale.

But it's all about me, me, me with AAA devs these days. They aren't thinking about the industry as a whole, they're thinking purely about their own bottom lines and cutting corners. And then, they start making excuses for themselves and why they're doing the stupid things they do. "The console isn't selling well enough on the handful of shitty games it has, so we're not going to release our great game on it and potentially help the console (and our game) sell because that's, like, risky and stuff!" And then, when their games miss out on a lot of sales and fail to meet expectations, they'll blame other things like piracy, instead of their own stupid decisions.

ARGH!

The AAA market crash can't come fast enough.

AzrealMaximillion:
But you can't possibly know this well in advance that games won't profit on the PS4/Next Box. That and to be frank, the PS4 does have a pretty promising series of launch titles

Many games aren't making (a good enough) profit now.

It would be worth the time and effort to keep up with the news of whats happening now because it's really interesting seeing all this unfold. Studios are closing, talented people are being let go... and this is all from games that are getting good reviews that were also released on consoles with HUGE user bases! It's very predictable what will happen the first year of the ps4; it will do poorly. Just like the PS3 and the wiiU, the initial sales will be great but then you won't be able to pay people to take them off store shelves.

That and to be frank, the PS4 does have a pretty promising series of launch titles

I know this based on personal opinion, but I haven't seen a single appealing thing come from the PS4 yet, and I am saying that as a Sony fan to. At least Nintendo "attempted" to lure in some Nintendo fans with a Mario game for the wiiU's launch. A lot of people didn't like the Sony conference, and one of the reasons why is it didn't look like there would be a strong library of games to distract from the social media nonsense they were trying to sell us.

I said this earlier in the thread. Nintendo's Wii U is mirroring the Sega Saturn. Good console, but due to previous business practices, the 3rd party is licking their wounds. If history repeats itself we'll see a major publisher publicly say they won't make games for the Wii U. Just like EA did to Sega.

A lot of that didn't make any sense, particularly the EA part. EA wasn't the entity it is today in the era of the Saturn, no one cared about them in the grand scope of the industry. It should also be noted the Saturn didn't do too bad when it first launched, it was in the middle of that gen that it started to loose momentum (which is BAD). The WiiU is currently mirroring the PS3 and 3DS; two consoles that had horrible starts and picked up immensely once there were reasons to buy them. When the good (and lets face it, first party) games start rolling out and no one is still buying wiiUs, then Nintendo will be in trouble. I do however see them being 3rd this gen if they don't at least bother to advertise to the casual people like before.

They were trying to replicate the Wii success with another gimmick controller -- the Wii wasn't a success in sales because it had a good library or because it had any kind of dev support but because it was a cheap item that people with no previous game ownership got or gave as presents -- unfortunatly for Nintendo a lot seemed content with Wii Sports -- those people aren't going to be interested in buying a "hardcore gameing experience" that Nintendo is trying to sell the WiiU as and devs aren't going to be any more eager to work with non-conventional interfaces than they were before - you can't have your cake and eat it.

Aiddon:

KungFuJazzHands:

Undoubtedly. That doesn't mean we should excuse the WiiU's paltry hardware specs, however. There's enough blame in this mess to pass around to all parties involved.

Oh hell no, I can completely excuse the Wii U's specs as Nintendo actually uses them for GAMEPLAY rather than just tech-porn. It just disappoints me that 3rd parties have rendered themselves incapable of lateral thinking. I guess I'll blame Nintendo for putting too much faith in the current crop of devs.

Last time I checked, games using the Frostbite engine did indeed have some gameplay elements, tech-porn attributes notwithstanding. Anyway, are you claiming that anything more powerful than a WiiU is good for nothing but tech demos and eye candy? That sounds like fanboy logic to me.

I can hardly blame the publishers for their hesitancy in developing next-gen games for a supposed next-gen system that barely manages to outclass the Xbox 360.

Then it looks like those investors aren't really grasping the concept of investing.

I think the saddest reason a console could fail would be a lack of games. No one buys the Wii U because of a lack of games, and no one makes games because no one bought the Wii U. It's one of those quirks in logic that you feel the need tp [point out, but no one important will hear you if you do.

FFP2:

Atmos Duality:

It might be, based on how the WiiU has performed in the absence of those.
On the other hand, the WiiU has the absence of...well, everything else save Monster Hunter and ports of older titles.

The results speak louder than I ever could.

And really crappy ports at that. At least they refused to let EA use Origin on the U.

I would rather wait until some of their first party stuff gets released and see how much it boosts the hardware sales.

That shit had Oprah promoting it.

May I jump in on the discussion?

I think the main problem for the WiiU is the bolded, quoted part
They had absolutley no advertising for it, at least not in Europe.

I own a WiiU and the games I've played (ports from PS3 and XBox360 as you mentioned) I have enjoyed a lot. I like the controller, Nintendoland is the best partygame in years and the console (for me at least) runs smoothly and looks as good as a PS3 or Xbox360 (which graphicwise is enought for me)

But as you say, they rely too much on expecting their audience to KNOW what's going on and after a success like the Wii was, just putting a "U" at the end, thinking people who don't roam the internet too much will know what's going on, ain't going to work.

So according to me:
Advertisement was shite
No new games, so everyone who's had a PS3 or Xbox360 ain't gonna jump on this wagon (until maybe in a year if the next PS and Xbox are complete shit), but I'm expecting a few good releases in a year and I'm in no hurry as long as I get the games and they're not shit, so take your time in making them :P
Expecting too much from a "casual" (damn I hate the casual/hardcore thing) crowd that the Wii gathered

KungFuJazzHands:

Last time I checked, games using the Frostbite engine did indeed have some gameplay elements, tech-porn attributes notwithstanding. Anyway, are you claiming that anything more powerful than a WiiU is good for nothing but tech demos and eye candy? That sounds like fanboy logic to me.

I can hardly blame the publishers for their hesitancy in developing next-gen games for a supposed next-gen system that barely manages to outclass the Xbox 360.

The power of the 360 and PS3 was WASTED on the current crop of developers. They really didn't do much with gameplay that couldn't have been replicated on their predecessors. And it's going to happen with the PS4 and 720. People AREN'T going to make games bigger or better with them, they're just going to make games SHINIER. There is no point in bragging about power when developers don't use it properly. Give and "artist" unlimited resources and he'll just waste his time for all eternity. Give an artist restrictions and he'll make the greatest masterpiece you'll ever see.

Most games don't need more power than a Wii to run without being overly flashy, the thing that is killing budgets. There are very few game types that are both popular and need the power of the PS4 to run, and those type of games are only really seen on PCs anyway.

Gamers need to start recognize good mechanics and story again, instead of flashy graphics. Even the fighting game community has this problem with MvC3. If my favorite JRPG (Xenoblade) and favorite platformer (Donkey Kong) of last gen were released on the Wii, and ran fine, I'm pretty sure most other genres can run on that hardware as well, and the Wii U is way more powerful than that! Stop obsessing over specs all the time and start looking for good games again!

Disclaimer: I love my Wii, Wii U, and PS3. I hate my 360, though.

The Apple BOOM:
Most games don't need more power than a Wii to run without being overly flashy, the thing that is killing budgets. There are very few game types that are both popular and need the power of the PS4 to run, and those type of games are only really seen on PCs anyway.

Gamers need to start recognize good mechanics and story again, instead of flashy graphics. Even the fighting game community has this problem with MvC3. If my favorite JRPG (Xenoblade) and favorite platformer (Donkey Kong) of last gen were released on the Wii, and ran fine, I'm pretty sure most other genres can run on that hardware as well, and the Wii U is way more powerful than that! Stop obsessing over specs all the time and start looking for good games again!

Disclaimer: I love my Wii, Wii U, and PS3. I hate my 360, though.

Pretty much; there's no benefit to giving them more power if they're going to piss away the potential. A lot of developers are just a bunch of spoiled brats letting hardware do their work FOR them instead of using lateral thinking. It's rather insulting.

Everyone was calling for the death of the 3DS until Mario 3D and the usual suspects showed up. They'll do just fine with their niche, and maybe a little of the casual audience they picked up with the Wii, once they roll these titles out. Then the install base will be high enough to please third-parties. I'm pretty sure they aren't selling the consoles at a loss, either.

DrunkOnEstus:
Everyone was calling for the death of the 3DS until Mario 3D and the usual suspects showed up. They'll do just fine with their niche, and maybe a little of the casual audience they picked up with the Wii, once they roll these titles out. Then the install base will be high enough to please third-parties. I'm pretty sure they aren't selling the consoles at a loss, either.

The Wii U is being sold at a loss. The Wii wasn't, though.

xPixelatedx:

AzrealMaximillion:
But you can't possibly know this well in advance that games won't profit on the PS4/Next Box. That and to be frank, the PS4 does have a pretty promising series of launch titles

Many games aren't making (a good enough) profit now.

It would be worth the time and effort to keep up with the news of whats happening now because it's really interesting seeing all this unfold. Studios are closing, talented people are being let go... and this is all from games that are getting good reviews that were also released on consoles with HUGE user bases! It's very predictable what will happen the first year of the ps4; it will do poorly. Just like the PS3 and the wiiU, the initial sales will be great but then you won't be able to pay people to take them off store shelves.

That assumes that all studios close due to the same factors, which simply isn't the case. THQ and Red Octane didn't close for the same reasons. We can easily state that THQ failed due to at least 2 major factor. The massive failure and expended funds of the Warhammer MMO and the Draw Something fiasco. That's THQ. The same can't be said for other video game companies. So I just can't accept the argument that because studios are closing with huge user bases, no one will profit on the PS4/NextBox. It's a very thin argument that gets defeated when you take even a peripheral glance at it. Just looking at how the week Yen is helping the Japanese gaming market is a big help for the PS4's feature.

That and to be frank, the PS4 does have a pretty promising series of launch titles

I know this based on personal opinion, but I haven't seen a single appealing thing come from the PS4 yet, and I am saying that as a Sony fan to. At least Nintendo "attempted" to lure in some Nintendo fans with a Mario game for the wiiU's launch. A lot of people didn't like the Sony conference, and one of the reasons why is it didn't look like there would be a strong library of games to distract from the social media nonsense they were trying to sell us.[/quote]
That's seems to be your personal opinion, which isn't concrete enough to say that the PS4's launch will be as bad as the Wii U. Hell, on these forums with the way MS is handling the NextBox and the way Nintendo is handling the WiiU many people here are most excited for the PS4 because it seems like the console with the smallest need for PR/damage control. We know the launch games for the PS4. A lot of people are particularly excited for The Last of Us and Project Destiny, which is more than anyone can say for the Wii U currently. A lot of people may not have liked Sony's conference, but a lot of people also did. This is more of a wait and see game now. You're using your opinion as too much of a factor when there are plenty of mitigating factors that go against it. You may not be excited to see what Bungie is going to do on a Sony console, or what Naughty Dog will do with The Last of Us, but the press and general reception has been pretty optimistic for those 2 games alone, and we haven't even hit E3 yet.

I said this earlier in the thread. Nintendo's Wii U is mirroring the Sega Saturn. Good console, but due to previous business practices, the 3rd party is licking their wounds. If history repeats itself we'll see a major publisher publicly say they won't make games for the Wii U. Just like EA did to Sega.

A lot of that didn't make any sense, particularly the EA part. EA wasn't the entity it is today in the era of the Saturn, no one cared about them in the grand scope of the industry.[/quote] Lolwut?First off Sega is one of the reasons EA got as big as it is now in the console realm thanks to the sports game that sold more on the Genesis than on the SNES. Secondly, you must not have a clue as to how bad the Saturn life cycle truly was. It was horrible for a few reasons.

1.They originally announced that it was to be available on September 2nd 1995. Then at E3 of that years (May 11) they came out and said that release date was a "ruse" and said that the console would be available immediately.

2. This was a major cock up because they didn't tell any 3rd party developers this at all. That means that every 3rd party developer was still making their games for the original September 2nd release and there was not a damn thing Sega could do in the process. The Saturn came out with 6 games and nothing else until 4 months later.

3.The console was sold exclusively at only 4 stores, Toys R Us, EB, Baggages(which went bankrupt in 1996 and wasn't that big in the 90s), and Software Etc(which got eaten up by GameStop soon after). This pissed off Wal-Mart and KB Toys. KB Toys was so pissed they decided not to carry the Satrun when they were eventually given the option.

4.It only sold 9 million in the 3 years it was out. 2.1 of which was in North America. Yeah, it bombed hard in NA due to the factors about and the price being $399. An extra hoof to the balls came from Sony when they, at the same E3, announced a $299 price point. The Sautrn was great in Japan but a failure literally everywhere else. This resulted in a 268 million dollar loss and 30% of Sega's workforce being laid off.

5. They announced the Dreamcast only 3 years later. Now this pissed a lot of developer off because that means that they would have to quickly learn a new console's coding while still making PS1 and N64 games. That means lost money. EA was particularly pissed because Sega bought Visual Concepts(which would then be sold to Take Two 6 years later as 2K Games), to replace EA's exclusivity in Sega's sports game market. When EA essentially said, "we're not making games for the Dreamcast", a lot of other publishers followed suit. They figured if EA as big as they are can't make money with Sega, not too many people can.

It should also be noted the Saturn didn't do too bad when it first launched, it was in the middle of that gen that it started to loose momentum (which is BAD).

Wrong again. The Saturn sold only 80,000 units in its first 4 months on shelves. The PS1 sold 100,000 in its first weekend. The Saturn only did moderately well in Japan.

The WiiU is currently mirroring the PS3 and 3DS; two consoles that had horrible starts and picked up immensely once there were reasons to buy them.

That's a couple of misconceptions and I'll tell you how. If you look at the PS3's launch sales and factor in that the 360 came out a year earlier, the 2 sold neck and neck in terms of units over time. And that's not even factoring in the 360s sold again and again due to RROD. There weren't any major spike for either console, and the PS3 gradually came to overtake the 360, so the launch of the PS3 wasn't as bad as people make it out to be. And to be frank, the 3DS saw a sales spike because of the 33% price drop that came out 6 months after release. People seems to want to forget that about the 3DS, but that's really was saved that console.

When the good (and lets face it, first party) games start rolling out and no one is still buying wiiUs, then Nintendo will be in trouble.

This I can agree on. Everyone seems to think that first party games will save the WiiU. Problem is, Nintendo hasn't been presented with having to deal with having to work to get customers for almost 8 years. I don't think a new Mario or Zelda game will save the Wii U. Look at every other franchise Nintendo has. The only one that have been given any respect are Mario and Zelda and Skyward Sword was more divisive than people give credit. Metroid still has a bit of a bad taste in people's mouths thanks to Other M, and the Wario, DK, Kirby, Yoshi, and many other Nintendo franchises have just been 2D sidescroller that could have been done on handhelds.

I do however see them being 3rd this gen if they don't at least bother to advertise to the casual people like before.

I disagree that marketing to casual would help. Casual gamers are not repeat customers. Zynga and many other failing Facebook developers will tell you that. Hell, a lot of the casual games on the Wii failed (Cold Stone Creamery's Scoop It Up anyone? How about draw something). Casual gamers tend to be good with what they have and won't spend 300+ dollars for an upgrade to play the same game with a few new features.

That's what has me saying that Nintendo is mirroring Sega here. They treated the 3rd party devs that wanted to make core games like dirt and marketed only themselves, just like Sega did. And them cancelling their E3, while good for Nintendo due to it being cheaper, probably isn't the best for developers. Do they now have to present with Nintendo AND E3, or do they choose? If they choose, can they demo their games on the Wii U at E3? We'll have to see, but its not looking good right now for the Wii U.

We'll have to see if the PS4 and NextBox succeed, but your point on why they'll fail fall more into opinion rather than any analytically inclined points.

DrunkOnEstus:
Everyone was calling for the death of the 3DS until Mario 3D and the usual suspects showed up. They'll do just fine with their niche, and maybe a little of the casual audience they picked up with the Wii, once they roll these titles out. Then the install base will be high enough to please third-parties. I'm pretty sure they aren't selling the consoles at a loss, either.

Why do people continually ignore that massive price drop that happened 6 months after the 3DS' release? The price cut that came conveniently a month after the price cut? I'm just saying, that price cut of 33% helped big time.

DrunkOnEstus:
Everyone was calling for the death of the 3DS until Mario 3D and the usual suspects showed up. They'll do just fine with their niche, and maybe a little of the casual audience they picked up with the Wii, once they roll these titles out. Then the install base will be high enough to please third-parties. I'm pretty sure they aren't selling the consoles at a loss, either.

They're being sold at a loss, but not a very high one. Furthermore, it doesn't need that high of an attach rate to make a profit. It's not like how the PS3 was sold at such an ABSURD cost that Sony never made a penny off the PS3.

AzrealMaximillion:

DrunkOnEstus:
Everyone was calling for the death of the 3DS until Mario 3D and the usual suspects showed up. They'll do just fine with their niche, and maybe a little of the casual audience they picked up with the Wii, once they roll these titles out. Then the install base will be high enough to please third-parties. I'm pretty sure they aren't selling the consoles at a loss, either.

Why do people continually ignore that massive price drop that happened 6 months after the 3DS' release? The price cut that came conveniently a month after the price cut? I'm just saying, that price cut of 33% helped big time.

You're right, though it's probably a combination of the price cut and the exclusives that put them on the gravy train. I always do forget that the 3DS was really expensive at launch (but remember that there was nothing to play). I see the exclusives coming for the U, but I really don't see them dropping the price anytime soon.

DrunkOnEstus:

You're right, though it's probably a combination of the price cut and the exclusives that put them on the gravy train. I always do forget that the 3DS was really expensive at launch (but remember that there was nothing to play). I see the exclusives coming for the U, but I really don't see them dropping the price anytime soon.

eh, price cuts are an overly simplistic idea. If there isn't product for the system, it's going to sell slowly REGARDLESS of price. However, once games start arriving, THEN the reasons to start owning it pile up. Plus Nintendo doesn't know the price points of the Nextbox or PS4 yet, so those are going to be the deciding factor. However, if the Nextbox has comparable hardware to the PS4 then I ain't seeing either of them being able to match Nintendo's price or getting close to it.

xaszatm:

faefrost:
I wonder if any of the console makers are looking at this and suddenly realizing the downside to required always on internet consoles. The development houses can now ask and have a reasonable expectation of an answer;
- Exactly How Many Registered Consoles are out there?
- How many have been used in x time frame?
Because guess what. Everytime these suckers fire up they will be calling home to momma. And that would suddenly become data that the console makers can't mask with BS sales numbers. Karma's a byotch ain't it.

In the case of the WiiU nintendo has some really high hurdles. Look at it from the 3rd party developer houses;
- PS4 dev kit... IT'S A PC! NO REALLY IT'S AN x86 PC! The only thing even mildly exotic (that any developer will bother to use) is that little touchy pad thing on the controller... WHICH IS A MOUSE! Most Dev houses can program for this console drunk... and will.

- XBoxWHATEVERTHEHELLTHEYCALLIT... The XBox has always been "PC Like" But now... IT'S A PC! No really! x86 CPU, PC GPU etc etc. The studio intern can port back and forth between the PS4 and XBoxWHOCARESWHATTHEYCALLITATTHISPOINT in about an afternoon. Most exotic thing is the Kinnect gizmo, which they may or may not simply ignore, and they have been messing with PC API's for for years now.

- WiiU; Ummm? WTF is this thing? Weird CPU/GPU. Underpowered, low memory for the generation (granted better than PS3). Limited guaranteed storage (yeah you can plug a usb drive in, but the devs can't predict if the customer will do that or count on it. Bad design decision!) And the showstopper. The core gimmick of the system, the weird iPad type controller thingy. It's more complicated to program for. Yet only 1 player can really use it, meaning multiplayer games not only support asymetric design, they require it. And designing stuff around it means you can't port to another console, you pretty much have to go from scratch. Without some massive install base, why would a third party developer go anywhere near this thing?

...I'm slightly confused by this post. Are you saying in the first part that Always Online is a bad thing? That Nintendo is a bad thing? That consoles are a bad thing? I'm confused with the sentencing. Because if I take the next three paragarphs into account without acknowledging the 1st you seem to be implying that the Nintendo is failing because it's trying to be as far away from being a PC as possible. If this is what you are saying, I'm don't see how making a console like a PC is going to help as I already have a good PC and a good PC isn't hard to build/buy and it has more uses than a console.

However, if the first paragraph changes what you mean than I'm still confused.

Not exactly. My point is that the Console makers will discover an unintended consequence of the console internet requirements. The 3rd party developers can ask questions beyond "how many consoles have you sold into the channel" and instead ask "How many have actually been registered online?" or "How many discreet consoles have actually been logged in in the past 6-12 months". Just imagine the difference such questions would have made to the evaluation of the Wii?

The thing with making a console more like a PC is it makes it an order of magnitude easier to develop games for. It is a common well understood architecture. Dev tools are well refined. developers themselves are well refined. SONY and MS switched to that type of architecture because they asked the Third Party developers what works best for them. SONY in particular learned the hazards of using exotic hardware with the PS3. Nintendo isn't trying to be as far from a PC as it can. It's probably something they never thought about. They just sought to make a console at a certain price point. But where they are going to get burned by the end of the year is that the other console makers did take the ease of development into the equation, which makes their platforms cheaper, easier and more enticing to make games for. The only way that Nintendo can overcome that bias of the Third Party Developers is to sell enough WiiU's to make it worth the extra effort needed to program for it.

The fact that both MS and SONY opted to use x86 architecture this console cycle really leaves Nintendo out in the cold. Either of those two consoles will probably quickly have an equal or larger installed base of consoles sold, to the WiiU. But it takes a fraction of the effort to develop for them, so a fraction of the cost. And the similar architecture means it is very easy to develop for one console and port it to the other. Which effectively doubles the installed user base as far as the third party devs are concerned. Because of its unique architecture the WiiU is more expensive to develop for, with a much lower expected return.

Granted this is not something that Nintendo hasn't faced before. They almost always scare off the higher end third party developers. It just seems worse this time.

AzrealMaximillion:

Let's see how many survive that. Just with those names you put up alone there's very little hope.

Ubisoft- Makes the only 3rd party game to significantly use the tablet controller. Doesn't sell well. Removes exclusivity from Rayman Legends.

Doesn't matter. Rayman games always sell best on Nintendo systems. It's the reason the Rabbids spin-off series became a Wii exclusive. Rayman Origins sold 1 million on Wii alone, way way way more than it sold on any other platform. Platformers always sell well on Nintendo consoles, and I expect Legends will sell well too, exclusive or no.

Capcom- Cancels Megaman Legends 3 for the 3DS due to poor sales.

There is a whole host of reason behind the scenes asto why Megaman Legends 3 got cancelled, sales only being one. Internal politics are likely just as much, if not more to blame.

Puts Monster Hunter 3 on the Wii U and 3DS. The game currently isn't selling well, not even 1/4 as well as that franchise has sold on the PSP for crying out loud. They also recently announced that they are going to focus on Virtual Console releases for the Wii U. Hardly a system selling strategy.

You mean the MH3U which landed right into the UK sales charts, despite having always been an uber-niche series before and being an updated port of a three year old game? The MH3U where demand far outstripped supple? The MH3U which Capcom themselves described as a smash hit?

How about we wait and see how Monster Hunter 4 does, being the first brand new MH game designed for a Nintendo system, before claiming the series is dead in the water? Sound good to you, cupcake?

Disney- are you really expecting quality gaming from Disney? Epic Mickey 1&2 were both pretty meh, and last time I checked Disney's development studio was significantly cut back. The closed the devs for Epic Mickey and the racing game I'm to lazy to Google.

You've maybe not heard about the upcoming Disney Infinity? That's alright, I'll let you go google it if you want. Kind of a big deal. Pretty big deal, in fact, given that it's basically Skylanders, but open world and with the entire cast of Disney characters. If Skylanders can become a mega-franchise, then Disney Infinity has all the makings of a phenomenon.

Activision- Are you for real? have you seen what games are upcoming from them? Angry Birds, Caleb's Big Game Hunting, movie tie in games, Pro Bass Fishing, Skylanders?

Firstly, despite your derision, Skylanders is currently one of the biggest franchises in gaming. It generates a lot of money from a lot of sales. If Activision keep supporting the Wii U with Skylanders, then expect that to make a big difference, given how more tapped into the 'family' market Nintendo consoles tend to be than Sony or Microsoft.

Also, there's this small game series called Call Of Duty. Maybe you've heard of it? Kind of a big deal...

The 4 companies you have listed don't make the most solid case for developers that are "raring to make games" for the Wii U. Your optimism is sometimes amusing at times Jeffers but this is getting to be a little much.

Not even Metal Gear Solid 3 on the 3DS could sell well.

A port of a 9 year old game? Quelle surprise! Must be the same reason why new games like 3D Land and Fire Emblem Awakening exceeded all expectations and sold pretty damn well.

3rd party developers got bend over a table and had their cheeks spread involuntarily with the Wii and that thing sold very well, so a bad selling Nintendo console would be like poison to 3rd party devs right now.

Except that Ubisoft, Capcom, Sega, Square Enix and Activision all made a lot of money from the Wii. A lot of money. So maybe we should hold back and wait just a little longer to see what those companies have got lined up for the Wii U? Because we know that all the major Ubisoft titles this year are coming to the console, as are the major Activision games, and I would be incredibly surprised if Nintendo didn't keep their relationship with Square and Sega going in one way or another.

how odd, Avalanche. You mind explaining how indie devs have had ZERO issue with communicating with Nintendo, then?:

http://www.gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=202283

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Snip

You're points are kind of laughable I have to say. Especially because you cherry pick critical acclaim for your points and try to dodge raw sales numbers.

Doesn't matter. Rayman games always sell best on Nintendo systems

False. And here are the links to prove you wrong:
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/51202/rayman-origins/-PS3 Sales= 730,000
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/51200/rayman-origins/-Xbox 360 Sales= 590,000
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/51201/rayman-origins/-Wii Sales= 430,000

That's all as of April 27th. I don't know where you're getting your info from, but since you're not even linking proof, I'll assume you're just pulling numbers out of your ass. Especially when you say stuff like this:

Rayman Origins sold 1 million on Wii alone, way way way more than it sold on any other platform. Platformers always sell well on Nintendo consoles, and I expect Legends will sell well too, exclusive or no.

You clearly didn't even check to verify that. Rayman Origins was a game that struggled to sell 50,000 units across all consoles it was on in its first month.

They didn't remove exclusivity from the Wii U for any other reason than the paltry sales of the console. It's naive to think otherwise.

There is a whole host of reason behind the scenes asto why Megaman Legends 3 got cancelled, sales only being one. Internal politics are likely just as much, if not more to blame.

It was a lack of 3DS sales, and a lack of fans participating in the forums Capcom set up specifically for fans to say what they wanted in the game. The petition the bring back Megaman Legends 3 was only 100,000 strong, which is really small in terms of potential sales.

You mean the MH3U which landed right into the UK sales charts, despite having always been an uber-niche series before and being an updated port of a three year old game? The MH3U where demand far outstripped supple? The MH3U which Capcom themselves described as a smash hit?

Did you even read your link?
"Today they added that while the game is considered a "hit" that retail sales of the game weren't as great as one might hope."

Yes, they called it a "smash hit" and yes it showed up on the UK charts, but when the sales for it are 330,000, i'd say that "smash hit" status is a term being very loosely used.

You've maybe not heard about the upcoming Disney Infinity? That's alright, I'll let you go google it if you want. Kind of a big deal. Pretty big deal, in fact, given that it's basically Skylanders, but open world and with the entire cast of Disney characters. If Skylanders can become a mega-franchise, then Disney Infinity has all the makings of a phenomenon.

Firstly, despite your derision, Skylanders is currently one of the biggest franchises in gaming. It generates a lot of money from a lot of sales. If Activision keep supporting the Wii U with Skylanders, then expect that to make a big difference, given how more tapped into the 'family' market Nintendo consoles tend to be than Sony or Microsoft.

This is lol worthy statement. Especially because Skylanders' sales have been decreasing steadily with every release. It's the Skylander's toys that are making the money for that franchise, not the games. While not as casual a game as Angry Birds, its the same business model. Toys, toys, toys. Probably the same reason Disney is making what you're describing as a similar game with a few more features in the game. So in terms of gaming, I can't take the presence of Skylanders or Disney Infinity Seriously. Especially when in reality, A) Disney Infinity won't help Wii U sales, and B) the Wii U Skylanders: Giants came out last October and has only sold 120,000 as of April 27th. That's hardly the sales of a "mega franchise".

Also, there's this small game series called Call Of Duty. Maybe you've heard of it? Kind of a big deal...

You mean the same Call of Duty that has sold like crap on the Nintendo consoles because of the poor online? The same Call of Duty that has only sold 7.4 million over 5 games on the Wii when the franchises sales are up to ten times that on the other consoles? (74 million on 360, 54 million on PS3) Come on, I know you take the task of Nintendo Defense Force on these forums, but that was a bad example.

[in reference to my point about how MGS 3 didn't sell well on the 3DS]

A port of a 9 year old game? Quelle surprise! Must be the same reason why new games like 3D Land and Fire Emblem Awakening exceeded all expectations and sold pretty damn well.

Apples to oranges argument. Especially when Nintendo re-re-re-releases first party games from almost 20 years ago and they always sell. Even more so when you consider that the HD collections on the PS3 usually sell well and are almost always ports of 9+ year old games. So your argument is that Nintendo's first party games sell well on Nintendo consoles while 3rd party games tend to sell much worse? Quelle surprise!!!!!

Except that Ubisoft, Capcom, Sega, Square Enix and Activision all made a lot of money from the Wii. A lot of money. So maybe we should hold back and wait just a little longer to see what those companies have got lined up for the Wii U? Because we know that all the major Ubisoft titles this year are coming to the console, as are the major Activision games, and I would be incredibly surprised if Nintendo didn't keep their relationship with Square and Sega going in one way or another.

Seems like a lot of wishful thinking on your part considering the points I've brought up. Don't you think there would have been games on the damn Wii U by this point if the 3rd party developers you mentioned had confidence in it? Look at what happened when Nintendo was bragging about its 3rd party connections on the 3DS. Half of them bailed and the other half put out games only to see abysmal sales. You argument is very placed with the uber fan stance so a lot of what you're saying can't be taken seriously, especially when I'm constantly throwing the info in your face that contradicts your points. Heavily. Your arguments are remnant of the person in the room yelling out half-baked prophecies yelling, "You'll see, you'll all see!"

Yes, yes we will. Nintendo fans have to stop acting like Nintendo can pull the sales of the Wii every single time.

Sad thing is, I don't even think the PS4 or NextBox will do miles better than the Wii U. I just think that they'll be handled better when it comes to third party devs.

Aiddon:
how odd, Avalanche. You mind explaining how indie devs have had ZERO issue with communicating with Nintendo, then?:

http://www.gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=202283

Communication and actual releases are totally different. Again, I bring Retro City Rampage's appearance on the Wii Marketplace into the spotlight. The game was done for 2 years and the Nintendo was the last company to put up the game. So I can't really buy that Nintendo is the best for indie developers.

AzrealMaximillion:

Doesn't matter. Rayman games always sell best on Nintendo systems

False. And here are the links to prove you wrong:
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/51202/rayman-origins/-PS3 Sales= 730,000
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/51200/rayman-origins/-Xbox 360 Sales= 590,000
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/51201/rayman-origins/-Wii Sales= 430,000

Seriously, you're using VGCHartz? You do know that VGChartz is highly disreputed as a sales aggragator, right? Companies don't use it for reference, as the site owners don't cite any references or sources for their figures. Sites like Wikipedia don't allow links to VGChartz over how unreliable it is. The owner of the site has more than once admitted to making up figures for game sales.

Seriously, give me a site with some actual sources and a decent reputation if you want to start comparing sales figures, not a site that freely admitted to making up MGS4 sales figures.

There is a whole host of reason behind the scenes asto why Megaman Legends 3 got cancelled, sales only being one. Internal politics are likely just as much, if not more to blame.

It was a lack of 3DS sales, and a lack of fans participating in the forums Capcom set up specifically for fans to say what they wanted in the game. The petition the bring back Megaman Legends 3 was only 100,000 strong, which is really small in terms of potential sales.

A 100,000 strong petition was all it took to get Dark Souls on PC. The petition for Megaman Legends was called '100,000 strong for MegaMan', and the fact they exceeded that number showed there was serious demand for the game. And again, you're making claims without citing sources. If 3DS sales are the only reason the game was cancelled, then I hope you've got evidence to support that.

Did you even read your link?
"Today they added that while the game is considered a "hit" that retail sales of the game weren't as great as one might hope."

Yes, they called it a "smash hit" and yes it showed up on the UK charts, but when the sales for it are 330,000, i'd say that "smash hit" status is a term being very loosely used.

You're the one who said it didn't sell well. Capcom said it did, thereby proving you wrong. And those sales are perfectly fine for a launch title on a system only out for 7 months or so.

This is lol worthy statement. Especially because Skylanders' sales have been decreasing steadily with every release. It's the Skylander's toys that are making the money for that franchise, not the games. While not as casual a game as Angry Birds, its the same business model. Toys, toys, toys.

...what? Since when is that the business model Angry Birds uses? Angry Birds is a F2P mobile game with tie-in merchandise. A completely different beat.

Probably the same reason Disney is making what you're describing as a similar game with a few more features in the game. So in terms of gaming, I can't take the presence of Skylanders or Disney Infinity Seriously. Especially when in reality, A) Disney Infinity won't help Wii U sales, and B) the Wii U Skylanders: Giants came out last October and has only sold 120,000 as of April 27th. That's hardly the sales of a "mega franchise".

Whether you personally like Disney Infinity or not, it is getting a lot of coverage and generating a lot of hype. If it gets good press at launch, then it will be a big deal. And yes, it could very well drive Wii U sales, if only for a very specific reason: The other consoles will need an attachment to allow NFC toys to be used, an attachment that will cost additional money. The Wii U comes with NFC compatibility as standard, allowing those Infinity toys to be bought and used without needing to buy an additional add-on.

That right there could give the Wii U a huge advantage over the other consoles when it comes to Disney Infinity.

Also, there's this small game series called Call Of Duty. Maybe you've heard of it? Kind of a big deal...

You mean the same Call of Duty that has sold like crap on the Nintendo consoles because of the poor online? The same Call of Duty that has only sold 7.4 million over 5 games on the Wii when the franchises sales are up to ten times that on the other consoles? (74 million on 360, 54 million on PS3) Come on, I know you take the task of Nintendo Defense Force on these forums, but that was a bad example.

Activision considered the Wii COD games to be incredibly profitable, as they offered a high return on a minimal investment. How is that not a success? Sure, it may have sold more on other consoles, but those games also required a higher investment.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the 360 and PS3 are on their last legs. They're not going to be getting COD support for much longer. When the next HD twins come out, you think Activision is going to ignore the Wii U's sales lead to focus on consoles with an install base of 0? Honestly?

Apples to oranges argument. Especially when Nintendo re-re-re-releases first party games from almost 20 years ago and they always sell.

Please tell me this isn't a "Herp derp all Mario/Zelda games are teh same!" comment. You're better than that, surely?

Seems like a lot of wishful thinking on your part considering the points I've brought up. Don't you think there would have been games on the damn Wii U by this point if the 3rd party developers you mentioned had confidence in it? Look at what happened when Nintendo was bragging about its 3rd party connections on the 3DS. Half of them bailed and the other half put out games only to see abysmal sales. You argument is very placed with the uber fan stance so a lot of what you're saying can't be taken seriously, especially when I'm constantly throwing the info in your face that contradicts your points. Heavily. Your arguments are remnant of the person in the room yelling out half-baked prophecies yelling, "You'll see, you'll all see!"

Well, considering Sega just announced today that they've got 7 titles in the works for Wii U, I guess we will see, won't we? Seven Sega games is what we'll be seeing.

Sad thing is, I don't even think the PS4 or NextBox will do miles better than the Wii U. I just think that they'll be handled better when it comes to third party devs.

I doubt it. Third parties right now have a chronic fear of selling less than 3 million games on any platform, meaning all consoles are going to initially struggle when it comes to launch titles and support.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here