• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Wii U Games 2013

I understand exactly what you're saying (and agree), but there has to be some amount of risk on their part. Crazy missteps in not treating the userbase with respect (Injustice and the DLC issue) don't help their cause. Not saying the base isn't responsible to some degree, but this idea that a general gamer can't be properly served on Nintendo platforms is just crazy and seems like some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. It's a shame that some games have bombed on the system, but games seem to be bombing all over the place, so there's a bigger problem here. What's crazy is that my Wii game library (and Wii U for that matter) is mostly third party games. I don't really like Mario games, but Zelda and Metroid are my favs, so I generally buy Nintendo hardware for different controlling third party games.

I've always believed in the idea of building a base. Throwing one game out there and then not following that up doesn't help in the long term. I like Ubisoft's direction in that they're going all in to build up their customer base on the platform. I hope it serves them well in the long term. With the future so uncertain, other companies should be doing the same, in my opinion.

The DLC issue is a weird one. Do any Wii U games have DLC? A few games seem to be missing DLC support, and it makes me wonder if there's some network framework or policies holding such services back. There shouldn't be, but I don't really know.

And I agree that building a user base is important, but the reality is they can't throw money endlessly at a system that's a dead end. I mean, Ubisoft are often full of shit, but I like to think that launching with an exclusive (two if you count Rabbids), while also ensuring Splinter Cell, Watch_Dogs, and Rayman (which admittedly has been screwed around) at the same time as other platforms is a pretty damn good attempt at establishing a market. If the end of the year rolls around and every game they've released on the Wii U fails to match Y% hardware owners software uptake it wouldn't be unexpected or unfair for them to pull the plug.

Building an audience is smart, but you still have to see that audience actually...build and development. If Ubisoft look at end of years sales reports and see a vast majority of Wii U owners didn't give a shit about their games, of which sold very well on other platforms versus their market penetration, it's about all the evidence they need to just say "Well, that's that".

Most publishers will be the same. And I think that's really where Nintendo needs to step in. End of the day, even though publishers play some part in building software to support a market, it's ultimately up to Nintendo to put that system into peoples hands, and to define what kind of people they are. It's a line they'll have to tread carefully.

I love the fact that Ubisoft is actually putting some effort in the Wii U version, but I'm more hesitant about this game because Conviction was okayish. I kind of liked the older Splinter Cell games and from what I've seen of Black List it's more actiony. Again. So I remain sceptical.

If Blacklist sucks nobody should buy it. Harker did note that, if it reviews poorly and sells badly everywhere then obviously that would be taken into consideration when gauging platform success (eg: Wii U).
 
The DLC issue is a weird one. Do any Wii U games have DLC? A few games seem to be missing DLC support, and it makes me wonder if there's some network framework or policies holding such services back. There shouldn't be, but I don't really know.

Ubisoft have had no problem implementing DLC with their games, including ACIII.
 
Ubisoft in general just seems to be making the most effort. I could be wrong, but I've only noticed one third-party game using Miiverse tagging, and that's Your Shape Fitness Evolved which uses tags as a way of showing off your in-game achievements to your Friends (as far as I can see).
 
Ubisoft in general just seems to be making the most effort. I could be wrong, but I've only noticed one third-party game using Miiverse tagging, and that's Your Shape Fitness Evolved which uses tags as a way of showing off your in-game achievements to your Friends (as far as I can see).

Well that has also something to do with the fact that 3rd parties didn't have tools to implement Miiverse into their games when the console launched (or until very close to launch gaming going gold). Which is why I find it weird that Your Shape Fitness Evolved had even that level of Miiverse implemented.
 
The DLC issue is a weird one. Do any Wii U games have DLC? A few games seem to be missing DLC support, and it makes me wonder if there's some network framework or policies holding such services back. There shouldn't be, but I don't really know.

There is DLC on Wii U, infact I've bought some for ACIII. There is no network framework or policies holding the services back, it's simply the publishers saying Nope, not releasing it on Wii U because............"reasons" I guess.






Anyway I've said it time and time again, the only way to build a market for your games/music/whatever on any platform is to release them on it. A market for a product is not going to suddenly spring up out of no where. If 3rd parties had treated/treated the Wii/Wii U the same way they did the PS3 (ie continuing to release titles even when sales weren't being met and profit wasn't being made in the first few years) they would eventually see sales on the Wii/Wii U. They how ever don't feel like doing that and would rather just ignore the platform.

I guarantee if 3rd parties ignored the PS3, or ignore the 720/PS4 for the first 18 months of their lives and then suddenly release a "test" game they'll have a hard time getting sales there too. You want there to be a market for your games on a System release titles early in it's life. Teach the audience to look for your logo/branding and know they're getting a quality title. It's not rocket science.
 
There is DLC on Wii U, infact I've bought some for ACIII. There is no network framework or policies holding the services back, it's simply the publishers saying Nope, not releasing it on Wii U because............"reasons" I guess.






Anyway I've said it time and time again, the only way to build a market for your games/music/whatever on any platform is to release them on it. A market for a product is not going to suddenly spring up out of no where. If 3rd parties had treated/treated the Wii/Wii U the same way they did the PS3 (ie continuing to release titles even when sales weren't being met and profit wasn't being made in the first few years) they would eventually see sales on the Wii/Wii U. They how ever don't feel like doing that and would rather just ignore the platform.

I guarantee if 3rd parties ignored the PS3, or ignore the 720/PS4 for the first 18 months of their lives and then suddenly release a "test" game they'll have a hard time getting sales there too. You want there to be a market for your games on a System release titles early in it's life. Teach the audience to look for your logo/branding and know they're getting a quality title. It's not rocket science.


Can we just bombard third parties with these common sense
posts?
 
It is somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy, when EA released Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U, they followed it by announcing a Mass Effect Trilogy, just one of many dumb moves that sabotages their own sales. On top of making ME3 on Wii U full priced, while the 360/PS3/PC versions were noticeably cheaper

But how successful have third party games really been on Nintendo home consoles? Even before MS or even Sony entered the picture? From the top of my head, i would guess Street Fighter 2 on the SNES and Mortal Kombat II did really well, and later Just Dance franchise on the Wii are most likely the most successful third party games. What about those Sonic and Mario Olympic games? Were they by SEGA? I know they sold good

Its obviously a demographics "problem", Super Metroid is one of the finest games ever made, and yet that game never really sold all that well, so its not just that people buying Nintendo consoles preferred Nintendo games, they obviously prefer specific types of games

I would love to see a top 10 (or 20) best selling third party games on Nintendo home consoles list.

Not to have a go at you here, but I reject this "Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games" line, often repeated on here, around the Internet and by the most extreme of Nintendo fanboys who don't seem to realise that this is very self-defeating. If you own a Sony console for your Uncharteds, LBPs and Killzones, you still have the support of other parties - I never hear their fans say "I bought this for Sony's games". Why SHOULDN'T Nintendo fans aspire to, and expect cross-platform games? I recognise that this wasn't possible with the Wii, but with the Wii U, it has all the tools and capabilities in the way that the Dreamcast & PS2 could get games from the more powerful GameCube and XBox. The Wii U is in the same position. It is noticeable steps above the PS360 consoles, and it positions itself at the Dreamcast & PS2 end of the 8th Gen scale, while the PS4 and Microsoft's 8th Gen console are at the GameCube & XBox end. Watch Dogs should serve as an encouraging sign, and the perhaps the next COD game (Wii U is with the 8th Gen consoles there). We also know that 8th Gen engines are designed with scalability in mind, so if the Wii U doesn't get cross-platform games in future, it's fuck all to do with a lack of power; it'll be because those houses didn't want their games there. Battlefield 4 not being there is a blow, for sure. Ditto Madden and GTA V (although I personally don't care for GTA V, I am aware that many would love to play it). It's time that the myths about Nintendo fans not buying 'third party games', and there 'not being a market for certain genres' on their consoles was confronted and killed with fire and holy water once and for all.

We already know about the Dance, Party and Health & Fitness games. Others such as Sonic, Lego and Disney games often do very well on Nintendo consoles. But it doesn't end there.

Dragon Quest IX sold about 6 million copies on the DS. Previous re-releases in the DQ series sold over a million on the DS, too. More than VIII on the PS2. Chrono Trigger sold a few million copies on the SNES, and that was without a release on European shores - When it released on the DS in 2008, it was a million-seller once again. Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles eclipsed that 7-figure mark on the GameCube - More than Fire Emblem: Path Of Radiance and LOZ: Four Swords Adventures combined, by the way. There hasn't been a flagship entry in the Final Fantasy series on Nintendo consoles since the 6th one on the SNES.(RPG/Action Adventures)

Shaun White Snowboarding: Road Trip and Pro Evolution Soccer 2008 are a couple of million-sellers on the Wii. Pro Evolution does better than EA's Fifa because of bullshit like this and this. Let me remind you that this is one of many EA parasitical practices. Unfortunately, Konami, too, were caught doing the same here. My point here is that there IS a market for these games, and anybody who still believes that Nintendo and Nintendo fans should bear the cross for this at this point is fucking dumb. (Sports)

Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars was a million-seller on the DS, more than on the PSP, yet Rockstar's silence is very deafening on Nintendo consoles. GTA V was 'considered' for it with the PC. Not even a late port of Red Dead Redemption, or something of note on the table. Only in the games industry can million-sellers mean 'no market'. (Open World)

Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2009 All-Play, EA Playground, and even Rockstar's Table Tennis are a few more million-sellers. We know about EA's 'unprecedented partnership', and I mentioned Rockstar above. (More Sports)

COD games on the Wii were million-sellers - this is a remarkable achievement, given that the definitive versions of the 7th Gen games were elsewhere, and that the XBox 360 was the primary platform for that series. The incentive to buy COD:BlOps2 isn't there, as it misses significant DLC. It is completely wrong and improper to blame Nintendo fans for buying a different version, or ignoring this one when these features are guaranteed elsewhere. The numbers are also higher than Vanquish (for me, this was the Best Shooter of the 7th Generation), which was NOT a million seller on either PS360 console. (Shooters)

Epic Mickey 2 sold better on the Wii than PS360 combined, and has a higher sale-user base ratio on the Wii U than both the PS360 consoles. It should've been Wii or Wii U exclusive. I think you know what happened after that... Although from different developers, it makes the non-inclusion of the Wii U for the Castle Of Illusion remake even more bizarre - It would be in Sega's interests to put it there before the others. (Platform Games)

Need For Speed: Underground 1 & 2 were million-sellers on the GameCube, which is actually an impressive sale-user base ratio. NFS: Carbon was a million seller on the Wii, too. People can knee-jerk all they want about the NFS: Most Wanted Wii U sales, but it's a fact that it wasn't released on a level playing field, and at one point, Wii U owners didn't know it was coming at all, then they were told to buy the game in the hope that they MIGHT be supported with its DLC. (Racing Games)

Soul Calibur 2 was a million-seller on the GameCube, more successful than on the XBox, and with a higher sale-user base ratio than it and the PS2. Again, very impressive, and further still, more than Soul Calibur 5 on PS360 consoles combined. No ports for this series, and time will tell whether the next entry will be realised on the Wii U - You can guarantee that it will exist on Microsoft's 8th Gen console, although it has a history of doing worse there than on Nintendo consoles. (Fighting Games)

More people bought Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition (at this point, a two-year old game) for that platform than PS360 owners bought Bayonetta. Yet Nintendo fans are wondering why Capcom couldn't bring RE6 or something more to the table for the Wii U at launch, but they will be able to enjoy the sequel to the best game on the PS360 consoles exclusively. What's clear here is that PS360 extremists didn't care for Bayonetta - they were more angry at the idea of Nintendo fans having something exclusive from somewhere other than Nintendo themselves after years of being spoiled rotten, at the idea that they could have anything, ever, at all.

That's before mentioning that Tomb Raider 2013 was one of a number of titles not announced on the WiiU during the launch window to be labelled a 'failure' or 'disappointment'. Or that Sonic & All Stars Racing: Transformed on the Wii U has the highest sale-user base ratio of all the versions - It was the first 'third party' game to top the Wii U charts; unit sales have been just as good as the other versions, and they are still improving, too. Or that Frozenbyte said they were very happy with the numbers for Trine 2: Director's Cut - they weren't happy with the numbers with the PS360 numbers; an outstanding achievement on a system with a smaller user base. So, there is a market for multiple genres on Nintendo consoles. There always has been, and these bullshit excuses just don't wash. All the fans ask is that they get the same game with the same content, and that the job is done well. Ideally, it would be released on a level playing field, too (i.e., on the same day as the rest) - So far, NONE of the Wii U's cross-platform games have been able to tick all of those boxes.

There's a case which says porting games to the Wii U would've helped these parties as well as the sales of the console - people buying one would have the reassurance that other houses are committed to supporting it, and in turn want to invest in that version. It's also a reality that many games across numerous genres underperform or don't sell on other consoles, but I don't see them making the same conditional statements or beating them with the same stick. So-called 'third parties' need to realise that they can't carry on the way they have been, and that relationships are two-way streets. However, instead of trying to meet Nintendo and Nintendo fans, they don't even step on the bridge (collectively, not all).
 
Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars was a million-seller on the DS, more than on the PSP, yet Rockstar's silence is very deafening on Nintendo consoles. GTA V was 'considered' for it with the PC. Not even a late port of Red Dead Redemption, or something of note on the table. Only in the games industry can million-sellers mean 'no market'. (Open World)

While I don't know the sales of Chinatown Wars on PSP, I do know that the DS sales were less than stellar, selling less than 100.000 in its first month. A subsequent DS title was cancelled. GTA IV, in contrast, sold more than 2 million in its first month.


COD games on the Wii were million-sellers - this is a remarkable achievement, given that the definitive versions of the 7th Gen games were elsewhere, and that the XBox 360 was the primary platform for that series. The incentive to buy COD:BlOps2 isn't there, as it misses significant DLC. It is completely wrong and improper to blame Nintendo fans for buying a different version, or ignoring this one when these features are guaranteed elsewhere. The numbers are also higher than Vanquish (for me, this was the Best Shooter of the 7th Generation), which was NOT a million seller on either PS360 console. (Shooters)

I agree that it's reasonable to avoid ports which lack features. However, this does not bold well for future ports or titles if sales are low from a publisher's point of view. Please also note that the COD games on Wii had significantly lower sales than on 360/PS3 despite a much higher user base.
I don't quite understand why you bring up Vanquish. Do you mean that niche titles stand a chance on Wii U?


Epic Mickey 2 sold better on the Wii than PS360 combined, and has a higher sale-user base ratio on the Wii U than both the PS360 consoles. It should've been Wii or Wii U exclusive. I think you know what happened after that... Although from different developers, it makes the non-inclusion of the Wii U for the Castle Of Illusion remake even more bizarre - It would be in Sega's interests to put it there before the others. (Platform Games)

Sales of Epic Mickey 2, which was incredibly bad, were low across all platforms. Still, it is quite surprising that sales on Wii U were higher than on PS3/360, which may imply that games targetted at children can find a market on Wii U. The non-release of CoI on Wii U is pretty baffling.
 
Not to have a go at you here, but I reject this "Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games" line, often repeated on here, around the Internet and by the most extreme of Nintendo fanboys who don't seem to realise that this is very self-defeating. If you own a Sony console for your Uncharteds, LBPs and Killzones, you still have the support of other parties - I never hear their fans say "I bought this for Sony's games". Why SHOULDN'T Nintendo fans aspire to, and expect cross-platform games? I recognise that this wasn't possible with the Wii, but with the Wii U, it has all the tools and capabilities in the way that the Dreamcast & PS2 could get games from the more powerful GameCube and XBox. The Wii U is in the same position. It is noticeable steps above the PS360 consoles, and it positions itself at the Dreamcast & PS2 end of the 8th Gen scale, while the PS4 and Microsoft's 8th Gen console are at the GameCube & XBox end. Watch Dogs should serve as an encouraging sign, and the perhaps the next COD game (Wii U is with the 8th Gen consoles there). We also know that 8th Gen engines are designed with scalability in mind, so if the Wii U doesn't get cross-platform games in future, it's fuck all to do with a lack of power; it'll be because those houses didn't want their games there. Battlefield 4 not being there is a blow, for sure. Ditto Madden and GTA V (although I personally don't care for GTA V, I am aware that many would love to play it). It's time that the myths about Nintendo fans not buying 'third party games', and there 'not being a market for certain genres' on their consoles was confronted and killed with fire and holy water once and for all.

[...]

There's a case which says porting games to the Wii U would've helped these parties as well as the sales of the console - people buying one would have the reassurance that other houses are committed to supporting it, and in turn want to invest in that version. It's also a reality that many games across numerous genres underperform or don't sell on other consoles, but I don't see them making the same conditional statements or beating them with the same stick. So-called 'third parties' need to realise that they can't carry on the way they have been, and that relationships are two-way streets. However, instead of trying to meet Nintendo and Nintendo fans, they don't even step on the bridge (collectively, not all).

Very good post. I think you're being a little optimistic with regard to how well a third party game would sell even on a level playing field with the 360 and PS3, but a lot of that is down to how publishers have disrespected Nintendo players in the past. All those broken ports and broken promises from the Wii era haven't been forgotten, and the continued refusal to treat the Wii U (and by association, its players) as equal to the other consoles, for example by only acknowledging the existence of Wii U versions of games long after the PS3/360 versions have been announced, will only damage that relationship further. Nintendo could certainly do more to make their console appealing for third parties and raise awareness of those games (a COD bundle for Wii U would have been a good step, for example), but if those third parties really want to start building a sales base, they have to accept that they're the ones who poisoned the water in the first place and they're the ones who will ultimately have to clear it up.
 
Ideally, it would be released on a level playing field, too (i.e., on the same day as the rest) - So far, NONE of the Wii U's cross-platform games have been able to tick all of those boxes.

Yeah, I've been saying this for months. All the "bombed" Wii U 3rd party multiplatform games are (somewhat to extremely) late, much more expensive than other platforms at the time of release, missing features, otherwise halfassed, or some combination thereof.

Sonic Racing might be the ONLY one that does NOT fall victim to ANY of the above, and the results speak for themselves.

EA's four games fall victim to ALL of the above (even NFSMWU; while upgraded somewhat, it will not get DLC and only supports 6 players online); to use that as proof Wii U isn't worth their time, if that is in fact what they are doing, is asinine.
 
The DLC issue is a weird one. Do any Wii U games have DLC? A few games seem to be missing DLC support, and it makes me wonder if there's some network framework or policies holding such services back. There shouldn't be, but I don't really know.
There are even F2P games and subscription based games and services. The only limitation seems to be that there's apparently no IAP infrastructure in place yet, but games can directly launch the eShop and open the correct page. That's what Zen Pinball does. You hit the "Purchase Table" button, the eShop pops up and goes directly to the Zen Pinball DLC section. You can even continue playing while the system is downloading your DLC (though you have to restart the game to install the DLC, of course).
 
It's not just a DLC issue to add to that topic. Injustice launched missing an actual feature. There is no excuse for that and last I checked they are ignoring any and all questions regarding the Wii U version of the games and if they'll address the issues with it. Should its lack of sales be held against the Wii U customer base when the same treatment clearly wasn't present and still isn't? I've said before in other threads as have others there should be no expectation for an inferior product to do well. No one should be buying a product just to show support. Wii U owners are NOT stupid. The current user base is still made up of largely the early adopter crowd or just the more hardcore. People that are more knowledgeable. People that are more likely to be mutliplatform owners as well. They are likely to know if they are being cheated by features, content, and/or price.
 
lol what

It's another Rayman situation, open your eyes.

I doubt that. The May 7th was never confirmed by SE in the first place, even if they had ever actually been targeting that date.

They may have just, you know, needed some more time to finish the game.
 
While I don't know the sales of Chinatown Wars on PSP, I do know that the DS sales were less than stellar, selling less than 100.000 in its first month. A subsequent DS title was cancelled. GTA IV, in contrast, sold more than 2 million in its first month.




I agree that it's reasonable to avoid ports which lack features. However, this does not bold well for future ports or titles if sales are low from a publisher's point of view. Please also note that the COD games on Wii had significantly lower sales than on 360/PS3 despite a much higher user base.
I don't quite understand why you bring up Vanquish. Do you mean that niche titles stand a chance on Wii U?




Sales of Epic Mickey 2, which was incredibly bad, were low across all platforms. Still, it is quite surprising that sales on Wii U were higher than on PS3/360, which may imply that games targetted at children can find a market on Wii U. The non-release of CoI on Wii U is pretty baffling.

Thanks for your response. For Chinatown Wars, it was a handheld title. I don't know that this genre achieves the same numbers on handhelds as on home consoles, so the fact that it wasn't the same type of success wasn't what I was getting at. The point was to show that it's unfair to say that 'Nintendo fans only buy certain types of games', and that there is room for growth. I would imagine that if they had the option on their home console, then they would give it a try. But they don't. In some cases, they wouldn't need to buy a second console because the support would be there.

For COD, the publishers can't blame fans for not buying when features are left out. ESPECIALLY if they're charging people full price. You say that they performed better on PS360 than the Wii - Never denied that. It's known that the X360 is considered as the primary platform, and that's fine. However, I would argue that many who owned a Wii also owned one of the PS360 consoles. I would also argue that the Wii version did well for games which wouldn't get the extra content due to being a less powerful system, and which weren't on the same level graphically as those of PS360. I mentioned Vanquish as it was a highly-acclaimed shooter which was less successful on either PS360 console than COD games were on the Wii - It didn't discourage these parties from releasing such games for PS360. With that in mind, it seems very unfair to say "Well, X didn't sell, so we won't release these other games". It's not right to make this excuse for Nintendo consoles when you could just as well present the same case elsewhere and don't.

Epic Mickey 2's sales on the Wii were higher, not on the Wii U, although the Wii U version has a higher sale-user base ratio than the PS360. The point isn't whether it was bad or not. I was further highlighting the fact that 'third party' titles can do well on Nintendo consoles, and that the PS360 route doesn't guarantee success. I'm not saying that the Nintendo guarantees it, far from that; only that every game ever released is a 'risk' - What separates them is the depth of the plunge that Cross-Platform Houses are willing/brave enough to take, and this is true regardless of what platform it is.
 
Publishers just want to make money. If they think porting a game will cost more than it will make, they don't do it. There's no conspiracy. Well, maybe EA a little bit (I don't know what's going on there).


I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, but you can not deny that Publishers treat different consoles manufacturers differently. I'll bring it up again but the PS3 had HORRIBLE software sales for a long time after launch. Yet very few 3rd party games didn't come to it, publishers just kept throwing titles at it, losses be damned, until things finally turned around.

Which is something you need to do, as I've said before if you want a market for multi-platform games to be there, then you need to put the games there. It's not a chicken or the egg situation, the games have to be there first before the gamers come to buy them. It's a matter of training the audience to say hey that game has Game Company Y's logo on it, they make good stuff I'll buy this. It 3rd parties don't want to do that on Nintendo platforms with their multi-platform titles, then don't expect sales.

Nintendo releasing games in genres they usually don't, and/or filling the library with their titles teaches the audience this is where the quality software comes from, look for this logo. If 3rd parties aren't there day one doing the same, then the audience isn't going to be looking for their logo/branding when they go to the store. They're going to be looking for Nintendo's. That's not Nintendo's fault, that's the 3rd parties.

Nintendo is basically damned if they do and damned if they don't. Look at both the 3DS and Wii-U launches, both of them opened with REALLY wide publishing windows of not many Nintendo published titles to give room for 3rd parties to do their thing. Which was something 3rd parties had complained about in the past.

Almost NONE of them took advantage of it. As we saw with the 3DS, Nintendo said ok fine, and started releasing their own software and pushed system sales (along with a price drop). From the rumors from CVG and other places, it sounds like they're going to do the same with the Wii U.

If 2 years from now the only software selling on the Wii U is 1st party, 3rd parties have NO ONE to blame but themselves. If Nintendo had gone the other route and launched the Wii U with a ton of 1st party software, 3rd parties would be bitching about having no room, that they have to compete with Nintendo and that's too hard/unfair.

I don't know why this gets debated time and time and time again. You want a market to be there you have to grow it. It's so fucking simple.
 

This left feet on the boxshot is weird.

10639093-1360243787-527093.jpg
 
I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, but you can not deny that Publishers treat different consoles manufacturers differently. I'll bring it up again but the PS3 had HORRIBLE software sales for a long time after launch. Yet very few 3rd party games didn't come to it, publishers just kept throwing titles at it, losses be damned, until things finally turned around.

Which is something you need to do, as I've said before if you want a market for multi-platform games to be there, then you need to put the games there. It's not a chicken or the egg situation, the games have to be there first before the gamers come to buy them. It's a matter of training the audience to say hey that game has Game Company Y's logo on it, they make good stuff I'll buy this. It 3rd parties don't want to do that on Nintendo platforms with their multi-platform titles, then don't expect sales.

Nintendo releasing games in genres they usually don't, and/or filling the library with their titles teaches the audience this is where the quality software comes from, look for this logo. If 3rd parties aren't there day one doing the same, then the audience isn't going to be looking for their logo/branding when they go to the store. They're going to be looking for Nintendo's. That's not Nintendo's fault, that's the 3rd parties.

Nintendo is basically damned if they do and damned if they don't. Look at both the 3DS and Wii-U launches, both of them opened with REALLY wide publishing windows of not many Nintendo published titles to give room for 3rd parties to do their thing. Which was something 3rd parties had complained about in the past.

Almost NONE of them took advantage of it. As we saw with the 3DS, Nintendo said ok fine, and started releasing their own software and pushed system sales (along with a price drop). From the rumors from CVG and other places, it sounds like they're going to do the same with the Wii U.

If 2 years from now the only software selling on the Wii U is 1st party, 3rd parties have NO ONE to blame but themselves. If Nintendo had gone the other route and launched the Wii U with a ton of 1st party software, 3rd parties would be bitching about having no room, that they have to compete with Nintendo and that's too hard/unfair.

I don't know why this gets debated time and time and time again. You want a market to be there you have to grow it. It's so fucking simple.
Very much on point with the last few posts. RE6 should have launched within these past few months. I can understand some 3rd parties gearing up for the new HD twins but when RE6 and Bioshock doesn't hit, it doesn't make sense. I would have scooped up Bioshock in an instant with some pad features. Quickly change weapons or plasmids? Yup, would be playing a lot of it right now. For full price. Now, I'll just wait til I clear more backlog and buy on PC. Doesn't make sense but when I take into account the hoops I have to jump thru on PC and the available selection (I still want to buy that reboot of AOE2), I'd rather wait for a steam sale and for it to hit $10. Stability gets me to spend more on console games. Like, I've had a hell of a time getting Bioshock 2 to run without that GFWL crap. And this is a game I got dirt cheap and double dipped on.
 
Not to have a go at you here, but I reject this "Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games" line, often repeated on here, around the Internet and by the most extreme of Nintendo fanboys who don't seem to realise that this is very self-defeating. If you own a Sony console for your Uncharteds, LBPs and Killzones, you still have the support of other parties - I never hear their fans say "I bought this for Sony's games". Why SHOULDN'T Nintendo fans aspire to, and expect cross-platform games? I recognise that this wasn't possible with the Wii, but with the Wii U, it has all the tools and capabilities in the way that the Dreamcast & PS2 could get games from the more powerful GameCube and XBox. The Wii U is in the same position. It is noticeable steps above the PS360 consoles, and it positions itself at the Dreamcast & PS2 end of the 8th Gen scale, while the PS4 and Microsoft's 8th Gen console are at the GameCube & XBox end. Watch Dogs should serve as an encouraging sign, and the perhaps the next COD game (Wii U is with the 8th Gen consoles there). We also know that 8th Gen engines are designed with scalability in mind, so if the Wii U doesn't get cross-platform games in future, it's fuck all to do with a lack of power; it'll be because those houses didn't want their games there. Battlefield 4 not being there is a blow, for sure. Ditto Madden and GTA V (although I personally don't care for GTA V, I am aware that many would love to play it). It's time that the myths about Nintendo fans not buying 'third party games', and there 'not being a market for certain genres' on their consoles was confronted and killed with fire and holy water once and for all.

(.....................)

There's a case which says porting games to the Wii U would've helped these parties as well as the sales of the console - people buying one would have the reassurance that other houses are committed to supporting it, and in turn want to invest in that version. It's also a reality that many games across numerous genres underperform or don't sell on other consoles, but I don't see them making the same conditional statements or beating them with the same stick. So-called 'third parties' need to realise that they can't carry on the way they have been, and that relationships are two-way streets. However, instead of trying to meet Nintendo and Nintendo fans, they don't even step on the bridge (collectively, not all).

Wow, this is an awesome post, and I must say I am SHOCKED by what EA and Konami did to those football-games.

I was always under the impression that Nintendo-fans, au contraire to popular belief, are much more hardcore and likely to seek out information than the regular PS360-user, and that these low-effort ports are therefore bound to fail on Nintendos plattforms. Especially those early adopters, which means that stupid ports like Mass Effect 3 never really stood a chance - as the Nintendo-enthusiasts would know already that they once again were getting the short hand. Good ports like RE4 Wii and Okami did well on the Wii, and original games like Madworld actually sold a ton considering the nature of the game. Too bad there was almost no support like this to see if Nintendo-fans really are interested in more none-traditional Nintendo content. I think it will be very telling if Bayonetta 2 somehow manages decent sales on the Wii U - which I actually think it will - and just as telling if that doesnt change third-parties policys :(
 
I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, but you can not deny that Publishers treat different consoles manufacturers differently. I'll bring it up again but the PS3 had HORRIBLE software sales for a long time after launch. Yet very few 3rd party games didn't come to it, publishers just kept throwing titles at it, losses be damned, until things finally turned around.
The PS3 had two generations of Sony cultivating an audience for the types of titles third-parties make - not just through their software releases but through the entire ethos of the systems; they did so as the undisputed market leader at that.

Third parties had already invested heavily into HD development and PS3 development leading into the generation. The only way they were going to see those investments bear fruit was perseverance.

The Wii U and Nintendo do not share such luxuries. Had the PS3 not had such legacy and investment behind it, third parties would be equally hesitant to support it.
Which is something you need to do, as I've said before if you want a market for multi-platform games to be there, then you need to put the games there. It's not a chicken or the egg situation, the games have to be there first before the gamers come to buy them. It's a matter of training the audience to say hey that game has Game Company Y's logo on it, they make good stuff I'll buy this. It 3rd parties don't want to do that on Nintendo platforms with their multi-platform titles, then don't expect sales.

Nintendo releasing games in genres they usually don't, and/or filling the library with their titles teaches the audience this is where the quality software comes from, look for this logo. If 3rd parties aren't there day one doing the same, then the audience isn't going to be looking for their logo/branding when they go to the store. They're going to be looking for Nintendo's. That's not Nintendo's fault, that's the 3rd parties.
It has nothing to do with logos on boxes. It's about building audiences for the games they make - and they're not going to sink their money into it when there are other platforms that don't require such. The other two platform holders actively build audiences for the types of "core" games that third parties make; and Microsoft has been successful in building an audience for family titles too later in the generation.

Nintendo sets the tone of their system. It is on Nintendo to cultivate an audience. Not third parties, because to be frank they do not need Nintendo.
Nintendo is basically damned if they do and damned if they don't. Look at both the 3DS and Wii-U launches, both of them opened with REALLY wide publishing windows of not many Nintendo published titles to give room for 3rd parties to do their thing. Which was something 3rd parties had complained about in the past.

Almost NONE of them took advantage of it. As we saw with the 3DS, Nintendo said ok fine, and started releasing their own software and pushed system sales (along with a price drop). From the rumors from CVG and other places, it sounds like they're going to do the same with the Wii U.
Do Nintendo fans really think that this barren period is some sort of thankless altruism on the part of Nintendo? Seriously. Nonsense.
I don't know why this gets debated time and time and time again. You want a market to be there you have to grow it. It's so fucking simple.
There's no onus on them to do so. People buy platforms the games they want are on. They have two (and PC makes three) proven, viable alternatives ecosystems.

Nintendo created a market for family, dance, party, sports and casual games on the Wii and third parties consequently tried to capitalize on that market to varying degrees of success.

With the Wii U they have a confused, confusing product seemingly only selling to people who need Nintendo games in HD.
 
I am purposely getting Watchdogs and Splintercell for my Wii U just to show it some love. I hope more games get announced for it and actually get released.

Getting those games as well but not just to show support. I don't think anyone should ever do that if they aren't interested in a game. Just a waste of money. However I am genuinely looking forward to Watch_Dogs. I don't have a lot of experience with Splinter Cell other then the few times I played a copy of the GameCube game (not sure which one it was) but I would like a action game and a shooter. So it fills the void. I'm still not sure about Assassin's Creed IV. I sold my copy of AC3 after putting in over 40 hours and getting it 80% complete. I might wait until that drops in price as while it was enjoyable I didn't love or come close to it.

Taking a pass on Resident Evil in the end. I have Revelations on the 3DS and I can't justify to myself rebuying the game on the Wii U just for better graphics and some more Raid and Miiverse features. Not at full price anyway. I'm on the edge when it comes to Deus Ex. I loved that game so that makes double dipping easier but price is still an issue. I think I could very well take a pass on Game & Wario. I've never bought the Warioware games and I don't want another mini-game collection as I don't play Nintendo Land that much anyway.
 
I would also like to point out that there is no Wii U party in the known without release date section. The game looked really fun and looked like it could be the jumping point for smaller more "ios" type of games. For example, they showed that small fooze ball type soccer game where two people use the same gamepad. Wii U could really use more of this and I wish Nintendo would be more vocal about this game.
 
I would also like to point out that there is no Wii U party in the known without release date section. The game looked really fun and looked like it could be the jumping point for smaller more "ios" type of games. For example, they showed that small fooze ball type soccer game where two people use the same gamepad. Wii U could really use more of this and I wish Nintendo would be more vocal about this game.

But we already have Nintendo Land and will be getting Game and Wario soon. I hope Nintendo focuses on their core franchises instead of more mini-game games. Save Wii Play for the next game drought or bundle it with something down the road. Plus, Mario Party will happen too... too many party games, I think.
 
Release date July 26th. Kill me. And they could of atleast made her gun on her heels blue.

It's a popular theory that the blue guns aren't Cereza's, but belong to an angelic rival/clone, or are part of some sort of disguise.

I highly doubt that date is accurate, but I will touch myself in bad places if it is.
 
But we already have Nintendo Land and will be getting Game and Wario soon. I hope Nintendo focuses on their core franchises instead of more mini-game games. Save Wii Play for the next game drought or bundle it with something down the road. Plus, Mario Party will happen too... too many party games, I think.

Wii U Party is really badly timed. Another own goal by Nintendo to be honest.

It's the type of game that may sell ok off the back of something like Wii Sports U/Wii Fit U when/if they are established on the platform....but by itself it'll be dead in the water. They'd be far better off delaying it or repurposing it to Mario Party U (which would sell).
 
This is interesting.

Since the unofficial price cut of the Wiiu in Uk (to 150), 4 of my friends just decided to walk out and buy the wii u (One of them was pretty much a Xbox fan).
 
Niche titles can find a way on the Wii U. If I were Platinum after releasing Bayo 2 and W101 I would risk porting at least Vanquish and/or Bayo 1.

As for building an audience I firmly believe in that. A new game or a new franchise on Nintendo consoles may not end up with huge sales inmediately but there could be untangible benefits that you could benefit from in the future. The problem is that the video game business is now of less risks and more playing it safe. Cannot really blame them.

Now I dont know why Sega, Disney and Ubi, dont take advantage of the Wii U platform with some nice budget 3D platformers.

As for all the ports, it is really sad that almost all of them are set to die by having some form of caveat. Then they are taken as proof that 3rd party software does not sell well.

Personally I am taking advantage of the eshop AC3 sale, will get RE Revelations and also Deus Ex HR. By the way when does the latter releases?

Having not played Splinter Cell for so long also looking forward to that one.

I am really hoping Nintendo is building Wii Sports U.
 
Guys I have beaten some games now, I will continue to 100% Lego City and have yet to finish ZombiU and Trine2. Also Nintendo Land, but that is a game you can pick and play every now and then.

AC3 is $40 on the eshop. Is it worth it? I mean AC2 is 20 on PStore, but I guess I want something for the U.
 
Guys I have beaten some games now, I will continue to 100% Lego City and have yet to finish ZombiU and Trine2. Also Nintendo Land, but that is a game you can pick and play every now and then.

AC3 is $40 on the eshop. Is it worth it? I mean AC2 is 20 on PStore, but I guess I want something for the U.

I would play AC2 over AC3 any day, but AC3 is okay
 
Guys I have beaten some games now, I will continue to 100% Lego City and have yet to finish ZombiU and Trine2. Also Nintendo Land, but that is a game you can pick and play every now and then.

AC3 is $40 on the eshop. Is it worth it? I mean AC2 is 20 on PStore, but I guess I want something for the U.

If you like Assassin's Creed, 3 is worth it I guess.

I bought it during the Ubisoft sale, half price so why not, and I personally think it's a mixed bag. Some of their design choices are absolutely laughable, and it's quite buggy, even after the latest patch. But I gotta say, the world is pretty well done, and I really like running around in it.
 
Guys I have beaten some games now, I will continue to 100% Lego City and have yet to finish ZombiU and Trine2. Also Nintendo Land, but that is a game you can pick and play every now and then.

AC3 is $40 on the eshop. Is it worth it? I mean AC2 is 20 on PStore, but I guess I want something for the U.

AC3 is a bad game. AC2 is actually quite good but if you want something on Wii U get Monster Hunter.
 
I'm thinking about getting AC3, too... the price is good, but I heard it can be an "overwhelming game"... is that true?. I kinda don't like "overwhelming games" (as an example, I prefer Arkham Asylum to Arkham City)

of al the AC games, I have only played AC2, and I liked it... (a solid 7.5 / 8 game IMO)... so, how's 3 compared to 2?... will I like it GAF?
 
I'm thinking about getting AC3, too... the price is good, but I heard it can be an "overwhelming game"... is that true?. I kinda don't like "overwhelming games" (as an example, I prefer Arkham Asylum to Arkham City)

of al the AC games, I have only played AC2, and I liked it... (a solid 7.5 / 8 game IMO)... so, how's 3 compared to 2?... will I like it GAF?

3 is a lot worse than 2, I loved 2 and felt nothing but disappointment for 3
 
Top Bottom