Support NeoGAF

[Shiggy]

I still find it extremely odd that devs are still announcing that they will launch games on WiiU. When Slightly Mad Studios said that Project CARS was coming to WiiU I was surprised but I guess the development cost of the WiiU version was covered by the kickstarted. But for other devs. The return of investment case is simply not made.

A lot of indie developers don't have a clue about the business side of game development, they join the race with some naivety. That's why we had lots of indies rage about the Wii Ware system, that's why we heard lots of bad things about XBLA. If they don't have a clue about the terms they sign, they should ask for some professional advice.
Whether indie game development for Wii U is a wise choice needs to be seen. There have been some smaller successes for titles that went completely under on other platforms due to the abundance of well-received games on those. On Wii U, these titles can find a niche.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Sometimes I question what's going on with NoA and why they're so stingy.

Could be the same reason why Rayman Legends was delayed for other platforms.

They better not so this to Bayonetta 2! I'm sure they won't because they're publishing that one, but still!

Its odd how they go out of their way to resurrect a game canceled by Sega as the original did not generate enough sales to justify further development of a sequel. They'll go out of their way for this game, fund it from the ground up, but not bat an eyelash at EA pulling all support for its platform. What a strange company.

 

[UnluckyKate]

Alex Ward always been straight forward love the guy best wishes for his next project

 

[shinra-bansho]

I understand his frustration, but is there really a case when Sony or Microsoft step in to promote a game that the publisher refused to?

This has been asked already I think. I don't know if there's any direct and wholly analogous precedent, because the reality is that Sony and Microsoft have never had such poor third party relations, afaik. Sony and Microsoft have historically also been much better at creating platforms upon which publishers have more confidence that there's an audience for their titles.

There are numerous examples of co-marketing deals, contractual exclusivity, etc. And as noted earlier in the thread, late ports of ME2 and Bioshock on the PS3 weren't released to a vacuum. I'm not sure what the release of the GTA double pack on the original Xbox was like - was that with minimal fanfare? Although I'm not sure whether anyone's privy to how much of a hand, if any, platform holders played in that.

Ultimately though I don't think one can say of Sony and Microsoft, that they don't play ball with third parties. Whereas I don't think the same degree of symbiosis or even recognition of a need for such symbiotic transaction, is prevalent at Nintendo.

 

[AniHawk]

I'm on the fence as to whether co-marketing NFS or any of EA's titles would have been a good decision. On the one hand, I agree the title had limited market potential due to the nature of the platform, the audience on it, etc. I'm not sure whether it was just made to fulfill some sort of contractual obligation to put out X number of titles. On the other, it would have been a good gesture of willingness to play ball with (Western) publishers and developers to try and build an audience for games like NFS in the future.

I really didn't get the point of the Sonic deal where they were essentially paying for games that would have come to their platform regardless and would have likely sold better on their platform regardless. Lego was actually a good move, I think it's still one of the best selling titles on the system and probably engendered some level of goodwill from WB, although I don't know entirely what the arrangement was in terms of revenue sharing. Although, it again played more to an audience that they already have traditional strength with.

the sonic thing is probably to keep nice and close to sega. there's more than just getting and having exclusive games. having business partners is worthwhile too. if there's one company it doesn't make sense for, it probably is sega themselves. nintendo's probably scratching their back in some way considering what lost world and presumably winter olympics did.

At the end of the day, the onus is on Nintendo to forge better relationships and to build more conducive audiences for third parties if they want those games. If they don't want them, then they can keep doing what they're doing I suppose. It really comes down again to what I was saying earlier about what Nintendo sees as its role and purpose as a platform holder, whereby they produce a platform to make and sell Nintendo games, and also allow other publishers to put games on it. And whether they're willing to compromise in that underlying philosophy at all.

well if they have a particular vision for their platform, they shouldn't have to make it something else.

a fairly successful example, just as far as support goes, would be the 3ds. it doesn't get the super high end games that are on other platforms. its library is fairly japanese and pretty kid-friendly. the system has its own identity and it's the one nintendo wanted to cultivate. it's pretty clear they don't care about the market sony and microsoft want, mostly because iwata has said they don't think they can compete for it.

maybe the biggest oversight related to just one game- and this one's huge- is not nabbing rayman legends. maybe ubisoft had something planned for other platforms all along, but that game more than anything in the wii u's first year should have had nintendo's full backing. that's exactly the sort of fanbase they want, and yet launch was mostly games aimed at the ps3/360 audiences with a little of the traditional nintendo stuff thrown in (disney, sega, wb/scribblenauts at launch).

the wii u woes stretch back a long time, deep in the management stage from around 2009/2010 or so when ideas and scheduling was underway. it's nintendo's hope for a machine to appeal to two different markets and instead it alienates them both.

 

[EDarkness]

It's a ridiculous strawman, because Logz made a sarcastic comment about 100% of the blame being on EA and developers, and they you went on to defend your point by making the logical fallacy that if it's not 100% the fault of the publisher, it must be 100% the fault of the platform holder. It's really not that hard to see, why people are arguing with your flawed logic. This conversation is about shared responsibility and relationships. As I said before, EA has already failed their responsibility, but that also does not absolve Nintendo from failing to let that bridge with Alex burn. If you were in Alex's shoes, the failure of your game would be the responsibility of Nintendo and EA for not marketing, and your own (if it was discovered that your game was of poor quality, which is clearly not the case, since the Wii U version is supposed to be the best version).

This explanation should really not be necessary.

I didn't mention anything about the platform holder being at fault. I don't know about them. I can only talk about me. All I'm saying is the life and death of my product falls to me and me only. I can choose put my game (or product) somewhere and have to live with the consequences of doing so. If I put my game on the Wii U, knowing good and well what the situation is now and it fails, that's on no one but me. Perhaps I'll make a different decision next time, but it's still my decision to make. Unless this is somehow wrong and I should be mad at someone else because my product failed....

That's a very virtuous outlook you hold, but if you, as a developer (not as a liaison of a publisher), went out of your way to ask Nintendo for support, and they refused, I don't think they are free from blame of the eco-system they are fostering on their own platform. Remember, this is about relations, not just sales. Even throwing the developers a bone, and ensuring there is no bad blood (which clearly they did not care to do) would have helped deter this current situation.

Support is not always throwing money (see Sony's promotion of nearly every single indie game released on their platform via their official Youtube channel). And as far as anyone knows Sony and Microsoft has never turned down a plea from developers, when they spent their own time and money to fly out and ask for support. This is a stark reality of the situation. Now if you have information to disprove this claim, PLEASE show me now, and I will admit that I was wrong about Sony and Microsoft's better positioning among developers.

Hmmm...no way I can get into this argument about Microsoft or Sony. Especially Sony. Not a fan of them at all, though I suppose they're better these days than they were. Let's just say that I haven't had a good relationship with them, so the fact that people are so high about how nice they are is funny to me for some reason.

Even so, if I asked Nintendo for help and they didn't give it, then I would accept that and move on. It would be like getting mad at consumers for not backing your Kickstarter or a publisher for not backing your project for whatever reason. These things happen. Just the name of the game. Honestly, I think relations have a lot to do with who you deal with on either side. How it's handled is the most important thing.

If I was Alex, I would blame EA. Ultimately, it's their game and their marketing. I worked at a prominent game developer and got laid off, I didn't blame anyone else but the publisher for being crappy. My lesson there was to never work for them again. Why would I blame anyone else?

 

[Coolwhip]

EA is to blame here, but having said that, Nintendo should just stop doing hardware. Time and time again they show that they are terrible at providing a platform. Nintendo consoles have been on a steady decline since the SNES days (with Wii as a lucky outlier), because others simply do it better.

If I were CEO of Nintendo I would stop making hardware, stop attemping to make a platform and just release games on every platform out there. PS4, Xbone, PC, iOS, Android and so on. Imagine Pokemon with microtransactions on iOS/Android, it would literally bring in truckloads of cash.

Nintendo makes the best games in my opinion and needs to focus on their strengths. Too bad Iwata doesn't see that and will attempt bizarre health products that will hurt the brand and company.

 

[AniHawk]

EA is to blame here, but having said that, Nintendo should just stop doing hardware. Time and time again they show that they are terrible at providing a platform. Nintendo consoles have been on a steady decline since the SNES days (with Wii as a lucky outlier), because others simply do it better.

If I were CEO of Nintendo I would stop making hardware, stop attemping to make a platform and just release games on every platform out there. PS4, Xbone, PC, iOS, Android and so on. Imagine Pokemon with microtransactions on iOS/Android, it would literally bring in truckloads of cash.

Nintendo makes the best games in my opinion and needs to focus on their strengths. Too bad Iwata doesn't see that and will attempt bizzare health strategies that will hurt the brand and company.

you make a lot of definitive statements off hypothetical situations with no facts to back them up.

 

[Log4Girlz]

EA is to blame here, but having said that, Nintendo should just stop doing hardware. Time and time again they show that they are terrible at providing a platform. Nintendo consoles have been on a steady decline since the SNES days (with Wii as a lucky outlier), because others simply do it better.

If I were CEO of Nintendo I would stop making hardware, stop attemping to make a platform and just release games on every platform out there. PS4, Xbone, PC, iOS, Android and so on. Imagine Pokemon with microtransactions on iOS/Android, it would literally bring in truckloads of cash.

Nintendo makes the best games in my opinion and needs to focus on their strengths. Too bad Iwata doesn't see that and will attempt bizarre health products that will hurt the brand and company.

Before doing that, as there is always that option down the line, if I were really considering leaving hardware, I would try a Steam like service. I think there could be a demand for Nintendo games on PC (shit EA does it), and they could also feature other games and gain royalties as Valve does. The Nintendo name has enough mind-share where it may attract a healthy audience and give a better opportunity for casual, family friendly, or distinctively japanese games to thrive. But I digress.

 

[cyberheater]

A lot of indie developers don't have a clue about the business side of game development, they join the race with some naivety. That's why we had lots of indies rage about the Wii Ware system, that's why we heard lots of bad things about XBLA. If they don't have a clue about the terms they sign, they should ask for some professional advice.
Whether indie game development for Wii U is a wise choice needs to be seen. There have been some smaller successes for titles that went completely under on other platforms due to the abundance of well-received games on those. On Wii U, these titles can find a niche.

Sadly. I think you are right. They probably go in with the dream of getting their game released on a Nintendo platform without looking at the business side of it.
Not only in the install base for WiiU very small. I personally believe that system owners are by and large not buying games for their systems anymore. I know I don't.

Maybe a one or two man team making a simple IOS standard game might break even but anything more ambitious then that is likely to fail.

 

[EDarkness]

Sadly. I think you are right. They probably go in with the dream of getting their game released on a Nintendo platform without looking at the business side of it.
Not only in the install base for WiiU very small. I personally believe that system owners are by and large not buying games for their systems anymore. I know I don't.

Maybe a one or two man team making a simple IOS standard game might break even but anything more ambitious then that is likely to fail.

I think it depends on what you're making and what you expect out of the sales. I do agree that perhaps some people go into this blind. However, that's where trying to get on multiple platforms and even things out. It also depends on the game and how it's promoted as well. In my opinion, this is the most difficult part. I've pretty much told myself that I won't be signing any special agreements with folks, and Nintendo has been fairly open about this with me. They don't seem too keen on making things exclusive which is fine by me. I want the option to port somewhere else if I feel the need to. Using Unity helps as well.

 

[KingSnake]

This has been asked already I think. I don't know if there's any direct and wholly analogous precedent, because the reality is that Sony and Microsoft have never had such poor third party relations, afaik. Sony and Microsoft have historically also been much better at creating platforms upon which publishers have more confidence that there's an audience for their titles.

There are numerous examples of co-marketing deals, contractual exclusivity, etc. And as noted earlier in the thread, late ports of ME2 and Bioshock on the PS3 weren't released to a vacuum. I'm not sure what the release of the GTA double pack on the original Xbox was like - was that with minimal fanfare? Although I'm not sure whether anyone's privy to how much of a hand, if any, platform holders played in that.

Ultimately though I don't think one can say of Sony and Microsoft, that they don't play ball with third parties. Whereas I don't think the same degree of symbiosis or even recognition of a need for such symbiotic transaction, is prevalent at Nintendo.

Yes, I acknowledge how much Microsoft and Sony are supporting the 3rd parties and how Nintendo does almost nothing in terms of supporting the marketing of 3rd party games to the point that Splinter Cell didn't even mention the Wii U version in some clips. But I think that even the 3rd party friendly Sony and Microsoft wouldn't have stepped in this situation.

But everyone knew that NFSMWU will bomb on Wii U. Although it was one of the best ports for Wii U it was a very late port with no features added. It launched almost simultaneously with LCU and MH3U (and those didn't get that much of a marketing push either) and EA practically abandoned the game and set an unmarketable price for it. There was no logical reason for Nintendo to step in and do what EA didn't want to do. They couldn't transform this into a success given all the variables on the table so not even a possible revival of the relation with EA was a realistic outcome.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

I didn't mention anything about the platform holder being at fault. I don't know about them. I can only talk about me. All I'm saying is the life and death of my product falls to me and me only. I can choose put my game (or product) somewhere and have to live with the consequences of doing so. If I put my game on the Wii U, knowing good and well what the situation is now and it fails, that's on no one but me. Perhaps I'll make a different decision next time, but it's still my decision to make. Unless this is somehow wrong and I should be mad at someone else because my product failed....




Hmmm...no way I can get into this argument about Microsoft or Sony. Especially Sony. Not a fan of them at all, though I suppose they're better these days than they were. Let's just say that I haven't had a good relationship with them, so the fact that people are so high about how nice they are is funny to me for some reason.

Even so, if I asked Nintendo for help and they didn't give it, then I would accept that and move on. It would be like getting mad at consumers for not backing your Kickstarter or a publisher for not backing your project for whatever reason. These things happen. Just the name of the game. Honestly, I think relations have a lot to do with who you deal with on either side. How it's handled is the most important thing.

If I was Alex, I would blame EA. Ultimately, it's their game and their marketing. I worked at a prominent game developer and got laid off, I didn't blame anyone else but the publisher for being crappy. My lesson there was to never work for them again. Why would I blame anyone else?

Like I said (and I was being completely sincere and not sarcastic) that's very virtuous of you, especially in an industry as hectic as this. I guess people see the situation with the WiiU as a symptom of Nintendo's bigger problems, and are trying to look at the WiiU as agnostic as possible. But yea, when considering the WiiU's current situation, it's needs to be taken into consideration, that, at the moment, there's not much Nintendo can do to completely turn the ship around. As Anihawk even stated before, it's pretty hard to even find an analogous situation with Sony and Microsoft, because relations never really fell through to this point. I just wish Nintendo would show they are making significant investments to repair relations with devs across the board, publisher be damned.

Also it's interesting that you say you had trouble with Sony's relation in the past. Was it during the PS3 days? As I recall, they were notoriously terrible back in those days, and were lambasted for it. That's when they had their whole "oh shit, our relations with developers is terrible" moment, restructured, and worked on fixing it. It's what I really want Nintendo to go through, because I really want them to succeed, but their relations seems to be one "problem" they're most hesitant to work at, even though it would be a huge undertaking for them. After all, yes, they would have to put a very disproportionate amount of effort to get back to the level of support that Sony and Microsoft have, since their support has been deteriorating since the Yamauchi days.

But, that's a discussion for a different thread and the others and I are merely looking at Nintendo's current home console situation in stark relief with Sony and Microsoft's.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Sony/EA did anything in particular to help sales of the year late port of Fight Night on the PS3? Or did that simply sell due to their being enough of an audience for the title?

the sonic thing is probably to keep nice and close to sega. there's more than just getting and having exclusive games. having business partners is worthwhile too. if there's one company it doesn't make sense for, it probably is sega themselves. nintendo's probably scratching their back in some way considering what lost world and presumably winter olympics did.

It just strikes me as odd, even from the perspective of relationship management, to prioritize SEGA in that this was not a relationship that was strained in any way afaik.

well if they have a particular vision for their platform, they shouldn't have to make it something else.

a fairly successful example, just as far as support goes, would be the 3ds. it doesn't get the super high end games that are on other platforms. its library is fairly japanese and pretty kid-friendly. the system has its own identity and it's the one nintendo wanted to cultivate. it's pretty clear they don't care about the market sony and microsoft want, mostly because iwata has said they don't think they can compete for it.

maybe the biggest oversight related to just one game- and this one's huge- is not nabbing rayman legends. maybe ubisoft had something planned for other platforms all along, but that game more than anything in the wii u's first year should have had nintendo's full backing. that's exactly the sort of fanbase they want, and yet launch was mostly games aimed at the ps3/360 audiences with a little of the traditional nintendo stuff thrown in (disney, sega, wb/scribblenauts at launch).

the wii u woes stretch back a long time, deep in the management stage from around 2009/2010 or so when ideas and scheduling was underway. it's nintendo's hope for a machine to appeal to two different markets and instead it alienates them both.

I don't think it's necessarily about bending their "vision" per se. Your example kind of highlights, even for titles that fit that vision, there seems to be an unwillingness to forge these relationships, at least and in particular with Western third parties. (Perhaps because they didn't need to before.)

Their approach as a platform holder just doesn't seem premised on creating an environment for third party titles to sell - it's not their raison d'être - in contrast to the way that doing so is essentially the crux of Sony's and Microsoft's business model.

In the hypothetical, for instance, had the Wii U taken off and the hardware been profitable, and Nintendo's titles sold gangbusters regardless that all the while third parties struggled to move their wares on the platform... does one imagine it would matter to Nintendo*?

*Obviously they'd miss out on royalty revenue, I suppose. But I mean from the perspective that they could just carry on and keep making Nintendo games on it.

 

[mclem]

Rather than recognition that the only entity that can break this cycle is Nintendo themselves, because as highlighted nicely in charlequin's post third parties are the ones with leverage in the relationship.

Actually, there's a third entity with an interesting amount of leverage - other first parties. There's the direct level - they produce a console EA believe they can make a profit on - but there's also an indirect level, since they too would be interested in special treatment or exclusivity from EA. Witness Titanfall, for instance.

While third parties have the leverage, one of the abilities they have is weighing first parties against one another

 

[enzo_gt]

The whole "developers aren't trying hard enough, X game did good so I hear" thing is getting pretty frustrating to see over and over again. Layer the equating of indie success to that of a game with probably ten plus million invested into it and it's even more saddening.

 

[Coxy]

What could they have done? Market? Nope, that's contracted to EA as publisher. Printed more? Nope. They only print as many as the publisher requests.

They could have let the publisher print their own copies with their own manufacturers in their own supply chains at their own cost on their own schedule for their own print run instead of forcing them to go through nintendo's own slow, expensive, unreliable, uncustomisable manufacturing?

 

[SkeptiMism]

Sadly. I think you are right. They probably go in with the dream of getting their game released on a Nintendo platform without looking at the business side of it.
Not only in the install base for WiiU very small. I personally believe that system owners are by and large not buying games for their systems anymore. I know I don't.

Maybe a one or two man team making a simple IOS standard game might break even but anything more ambitious then that is likely to fail.

While I don't expect eShop games to sell all that much money, I'm pretty sure people are buying them.

In fact, I'd say many indie games have a good chance to do a lot better on Wii U than on PS4 and XB1, because there's not nearly as much competition on Wii U. It remains to be seen though.

I certainly wouldn't make a Wii U exclusive eShop game, but if I were working on Unity for example, or if my game was fairly simple, I'd very likely bring the game on the system and see how it sells.

 

[cyberheater]

I certainly wouldn't make a Wii U exclusive eShop game, but if I were working on Unity for example, or if my game was fairly simple, I'd very likely bring the game on the system and see how it sells.

Which is fair enough but as you've said. You wouldn't stake your lively hood by just publishing on that platform unless it was just a hobby for you.

That's a pretty sad state of affairs for the platform.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Sadly. I think you are right. They probably go in with the dream of getting their game released on a Nintendo platform without looking at the business side of it.
Not only in the install base for WiiU very small. I personally believe that system owners are by and large not buying games for their systems anymore. I know I don't.

Maybe a one or two man team making a simple IOS standard game might break even but anything more ambitious then that is likely to fail.

yeah but the attachrate is not shabby. its expected as the installbase is very small and the people buying it now are nintendo fans ..

 

[Frodo]

Felt bad reading the OP.

I did buy the game (through the eShop as it was virtually impossible to find it on shelves here) and it was a good effort. Better graphics, discreet but efficient use of the Gamepad. They did try.

I won't even comment about EA, because we all know the current state of affairs of the company with Nintendo, but if Nintendo itself can't help one of the few developers willing to develop for the platform, then, it pains me to say, they deserve all the mess they are in (Full disclaimer: I own a Wii U and I love it). Although, that being said, marketing a port that has already been released for other platforms, from a publisher that abandoned your platform before it launched after promises of support might not sound like the best of ideas, so I don't know what could have been done in this situation. It is a shame that the devs that made all the hard work still get the short end of the stick, though.

Anyway, pretty cool of him to be so honest about the subject. Wish him all the best on his next efforts.

 

[EDarkness]

Which is fair enough but as you've said. You wouldn't stake your lively hood by just publishing on that platform unless it was just a hobby for you.

That's a pretty sad state of affairs for the platform.

It doesn't have to be a "hobby", but having other platforms as well is a better way to go. Make the Wii U game, but have a PC, mobile, PS4, etc. version as well.

 

[FyreWulff]

I don't think you're seeing the entire picture. EA doesn't really care about the sales of its games on Wii U. They historically do not sell the lion's share of their games on Nintendo platforms. They do not need Nintendo. They did not care that NFS didn't sell well. Nintendo is in a position where they need EA and their support. Which they clearly have not done enough to secure. This is Nintendo's problem. They are the one's who need EA, which is quite possibly the most important third party publisher in the world.

As a side note, have EA x Nintendo ever really been that strong? I seem to remember EA basically going PC -> Sega -> Playstation -> Xbox as their "main" platforms.

I still find it extremely odd that devs are still announcing that they will launch games on WiiU. When Slightly Mad Studios said that Project CARS was coming to WiiU I was surprised but I guess the development cost of the WiiU version was covered by the kickstarter. But for other devs. The return of investment case is simply not made.

Lot more indies are using Unity now, and if you're using Unity, there's basically no reason to not release on Wii U when Nintendo is subsidizing 100% of the cost for the SDK license. And they don't even have an exclusivity requirement for that.

So it's basically a little bit of money, click a box, you have a Wii U version.

 

[Log4Girlz]

As a side note, have EA x Nintendo ever really been that strong? I seem to remember EA basically going PC -> Sega -> Playstation -> Xbox as their "main" platforms.

Well they did do a push on Wii, with MySims, Madden, Fifa, Boomblox and its sequel, a couple of fitness titles, a few Medal of Honor titles. They actually released quite a bit. It wasn't their main focus as much as the 360 or PS3, but it had decent support. Then apparently relations must have gotten good enough for that whole "unprecedented partnership" or whatever presentation to go down.

But then right into the toilet it all went.

 

[SkeptiMism]

Which is fair enough but as you've said. You wouldn't stake your lively hood by just publishing on that platform unless it was just a hobby for you.

That's a pretty sad state of affairs for the platform.

Eh? I certainly wouldn't make a PS4 or XB1 exclusive PSN/XBL game either. Most likely not even a PC exclusive. Even though the indie scene really thrives on PC, a lot of games don't sell all that much there either.

It just makes more sense to bring games to multiple platforms.

 

[AniHawk]

It just strikes me as odd, even from the perspective of relationship management, to prioritize SEGA in that this was not a relationship that was strained in any way afaik.

sometimes you do things to continue a relationship. other times you do it to have them stay an arm's length away from your competition, especially if they have something you think can benefit you.

I don't think it's necessarily about bending their "vision" per se. Your example kind of highlights, even for titles that fit that vision, there seems to be an unwillingness to forge these relationships, at least and in particular with Western third parties. (Perhaps because they didn't need to before.)

iwata's nintendo has been generally against forging relationships with western developers when it comes to third-party software. however, they're super keen on the idea of having western developers actually develop games for them. maybe it's a matter of control.

Their approach as a platform holder just doesn't seem premised on creating an environment for third party titles to sell - it's not their raison d'être - in contrast to the way that doing so is essentially the crux of Sony's and Microsoft's business model.

In the hypothetical, for instance, had the Wii U taken off and the hardware been profitable, and Nintendo's titles sold gangbusters regardless that all the while third parties struggled to move their wares on the platform... does one imagine it would matter to Nintendo*?

*Obviously they'd miss out on royalty revenue, I suppose. But I mean from the perspective that they could just carry on and keep making Nintendo games on it.

nintendo probably wouldn't care unless they found something they wanted for themselves. atlus's support during the ds era led to heavy promotion of shin megami tensei iv (*cough*in north america*cough*), for instance. it's probably where they got the idea to grab sonic and lego.

the way i see it is this: microsoft and sony have created an environment where third parties generally created games geared towards more and more specific demographics. said demographics aren't in nintendo's pocket. for nintendo to get in on that sweet sweet titanfall cash, they'd have to pony up a ton more than they'd be willing to spend on r&d and marketing. it's better for them to change the market to better suit their needs. otherwise, they're expanding the options to buy games that further push the types of games nintendo makes into irrelevance. at least, that's probably the philosophy nintendo has regarding that.

 

[Risk Breaker]

Paging shockingalberto

 

[mclem]

Nintendo's lack of support to Most Wanted U helped ensure that Rivals never came out on the system.

Given the timespans involved, I suspect it may be more realistic to say that Rivals never being developed for the Wii U helped ensure that Nintendo would not support Most Wanted U. The game would have been well into development at that point.

 

[mclem]

I can blame Nintendo for a lot of stuff...and I worked there at one point in time. However, this isn't one of them. I firmly believe that the burden of selling stuff falls in the lap of the person who created it. If it does bad, then it's their fault. I wouldn't blame someone else for my failings and if I simply didn't give a shit, then I would accept that as well.

You're right... but there's two products being sold in this transaction:

* Need for Speed: Most Wanted
* The Wii U (As a games console, as a viable development platform).

The burden of selling the Wii U falls in the lap of the company who created it. And one of the ways you improve the value prospect of the system is by bolstering the library.

 

[cyberheater]

Lot more indies are using Unity now, and if you're using Unity, there's basically no reason to not release on Wii U when Nintendo is subsidizing 100% of the cost for the SDK license. And they don't even have an exclusivity requirement for that.

So it's basically a little bit of money, click a box, you have a Wii U version.

LOL. Surely it takes a bit more then that

 

[EDarkness]

Like I said (and I was being completely sincere and not sarcastic) that's very virtuous of you, especially in an industry as hectic as this.

Thanks. I'm a firm believer of not making excuses for why our products don't sell. I jumped into self publishing long ago and I wasn't successful back then, but I never blamed anyone for that. There were lots of things I could have done, but I didn't. All I could do is try to do a better job next time. On top of that, I make no excuses about the quality, either. At the end of the day, it's all on me and I'm the only one to blame for what gets released. Good or bad.

I guess people see the situation with the WiiU as a symptom of Nintendo's bigger problems, and are trying to look at the WiiU as agnostic as possible. But yea, when considering the WiiU's current situation, it's needs to be taken into consideration, that, at the moment, there's not much Nintendo can do to completely turn the ship around. As Anihawk even stated before, it's pretty hard to even find an analogous situation with Sony and Microsoft, because relations never really fell through to this point. I just wish Nintendo would show they are making significant investments to repair relations with devs across the board, publisher be damned.

I understand that, and I agree with what people are saying. Nintendo needs to get their act together, but dealing with them recently doesn't make me as jaded as some people. They seem like a nice enough bunch, so I can't really say much on a personal level. *shrug*

Also it's interesting that you say you had trouble with Sony's relation in the past. Was it during the PS3 days? As I recall, they were notoriously terrible back in those days, and were lambasted for it. That's when they had their whole "oh shit, our relations with developers is terrible" moment, restructured, and worked on fixing it. It's what I really want Nintendo to go through, because I really want them to succeed, but their relations seems to be one "problem" they're most hesitant to work at, even though it would be a huge undertaking for them. After all, yes, they would have to put a very disproportionate amount of effort to get back to the level of support that Sony and Microsoft have, since their support has been deteriorating since the Yamauchi days.

Without getting into details, I'll just say that for some reason Sony and I haven't seen eye to eye...ever. Dating back to the PS1 days. I hear their situation is better these days, perhaps I'll try to talk to them again after my Kickstarter goes live next month.

 

[AniHawk]

Without getting into details, I'll just say that for some reason Sony and I haven't seen eye to eye...ever. Dating back to the PS1 days. I hear their situation is better these days, perhaps I'll try to talk to them again after my Kickstarter goes live next month.

sony or scea? i've heard scea is looks-oriented.

 

[EDarkness]

sony or scea? i've heard scea is looks-oriented.

SCEA. Heh, lots of good memories dealing with them.

You're right... but there's two products being sold in this transaction:

* Need for Speed: Most Wanted
* The Wii U (As a games console, as a viable development platform).

The burden of selling the Wii U falls in the lap of the company who created it. And one of the ways you improve the value prospect of the system is by bolstering the library.

I agree. Nintendo has their own problems. The Wii U issues fall on them squarely. But the Need for Speed issue falls on EA.

 

[Darius]

So in other words he is bitter because Nintendo didn´t moneyhat/market the game (a delayed port...) instead of their own publisher EA. Obviously it´s popular around here to blame everything on Nintendo but we know for a while that EA has some deals going on with Microsoft.

 

[mclem]

I agree. Nintendo has their own problems. The Wii U issues fall on them squarely. But the Need for Speed issue falls on EA.

But Need for Speed (or, to generalise, "an environment in which games are plentiful") is a component of selling the Wii U. That's the thing.

So in other words he is bitter because Nintendo didn´t moneyhat/market the game (a delayed port...) instead of their own publisher EA. Obviously it´s popular around here to blame everything on Nintendo but we know for a while that EA has some deals going on with Microsoft.

Mmm. Don't want to get too tinfoil-hatty, but I wonder where in this chain of events the Titanfall deal happened.

 

[EDarkness]

But Need for Speed (or, to generalise, "an environment in which games are plentiful") is a component of selling the Wii U. That's the thing.

They didn't stop the game from being released. They even promoted the game in a Nintendo Direct and on the eShop. Still promoting the game on the eShop as of this morning.

 

[Bluth54]

Before doing that, as there is always that option down the line, if I were really considering leaving hardware, I would try a Steam like service. I think there could be a demand for Nintendo games on PC (shit EA does it), and they could also feature other games and gain royalties as Valve does. The Nintendo name has enough mind-share where it may attract a healthy audience and give a better opportunity for casual, family friendly, or distinctively japanese games to thrive. But I digress.

No thanks, we don't need anymore platforms on the PC. Making their games Steamworks and putting them on Steam would be the best bet.

 

[mclem]

They didn't stop the game from being released. They even promoted the game in a Nintendo Direct and on the eShop. Still promoting the game on the eShop as of this morning.

Yes, but if you want to sell your console, you need to advertise to an audience outside those regions.

One thing that does make me wonder: The expectation here suggests that maybe there was a contract in place. Who breached it?

 

[Darius]

But Need for Speed (or, to generalise, "an environment in which games are plentiful") is a component of selling the Wii U. That's the thing.


Mmm. Don't want to get too tinfoil-hatty, but I wonder where in this chain of events the Titanfall deal happened.

Titanfall isn´t the only deal. Just look at all the bundled EA games with Xone from launch, also the drm plans before the backlash.

 

[mclem]

Its odd how they go out of their way to resurrect a game canceled by Sega as the original did not generate enough sales to justify further development of a sequel. They'll go out of their way for this game, fund it from the ground up, but not bat an eyelash at EA pulling all support for its platform. What a strange company.

I think Nintendo push hard - perhaps too hard - to ensure their software offering is unique, trying to tap into both people who don't feel well-supported by the other two consoles and also trying to establish themselves as a more interesting choice as a second console; hence, in their eyes, a unique exclusive Bayonetta 2 is more valuable than another version of a game their rivals have.

I don't think it's an invalid approach as such, but it's not working particularly well for them.

 

[mclem]

Titanfall isn´t the only deal. Just look at all the bundled EA games with Xone from launch, also the drm plans before the backlash.

We're not dealing with an environment in isolation, though. You'd have to ask why EA aren't shunning the PS4 in the same way.

That said, it's not impossible that Microsoft would be pushing hard to marginalise the company that offers the theoretical biggest direct rival for Kinect's audience.

 

[BishopLamont]

Not sure why any blame should be directed at Nintendo, its clearly all on EA's shoulders to get this game out in a proper fashion.

 

[FyreWulff]

LOL. Surely it takes a bit more then that

Maybe a couple of small adjustments here and there, but Unity is seriously that easy to ship other OS and platform versions.

It's like that for Linux too. Build on windows, click a box, you have a Linux version.

It's really good middleware and really came into it's own over the past few years.

 

[Darius]

We're not dealing with an environment in isolation, though. You'd have to ask why EA aren't shunning the PS4 in the same way.

That said, it's not impossible that Microsoft would be pushing hard to marginalise the company that offers the theoretical biggest direct rival for Kinect's audience.

Sony heavily invests in 3rd party marketing/moneyhats as well (for example Battlefield4, Watch Dogs etc. as seen in several announced console bundles).

 

[dark10x]

Sony heavily invests in 3rd party marketing/moneyhats as well (for example Battlefield4, Watch Dogs etc. as seen in several announced console bundles).

Microsoft with Titanfall and plenty of others as well. It's quite common, really.

 

[Bgamer90]

Microsoft with Titanfall and plenty of others as well. It's quite common, really.

It's pretty much the norm for any big 3rd party release.

Each of them will pretty much at the minimum have some form of a timed exclusivity DLC deal.

 

[Saty]

I'm getting annoyed and confused with this recent stance among console players, particularly wii u users in the last year, that if their SKU is released even as little as a month later then they write the game, developer and publisher off; are no longer interested in the title and actually think it's justified for the SKU to bomb and not break even and that there shouldn't be any expectation for the SKU to sell.

 

[cyberheater]

Maybe a couple of small adjustments here and there, but Unity is seriously that easy to ship other OS and platform versions.

It's like that for Linux too. Build on windows, click a box, you have a Linux version.

It's really good middleware and really came into it's own over the past few years.

Don't you have to write input code for the buttons and joypad. What about the WiiU screen?

 

[EDarkness]

Yes, but if you want to sell your console, you need to advertise to an audience outside those regions.

One thing that does make me wonder: The expectation here suggests that maybe there was a contract in place. Who breached it?

<shrug> I don't see other console makers doing much more than that, either. The PSN shop has lots of other software that they advertise on their front page. They have videos and such...same as the eShop. What else does Sony do? Advertise on their own website? Same with Xbox Live.

Don't you have to write input code for the buttons and joypad. What about the WiiU screen?

Yep. I have to change a bunch of key stuff. I have to do it when I make PC versions of my game since I design on a Mac and Xbox controller changes. Gotta do the same for the Wii U from what I understand.

 

[KHlover]

I'm getting annoyed and confused with this recent stance among console players, particularly wii u users in the last year, that if their SKU is released even as little as a month later then they write the game, developer and publisher off; are no longer interested in the title and actually think it's justified for the SKU to bomb and not break even and that there shouldn't be any expectation for the SKU to sell.

Actually the reasoning is pretty straightforward: WiiU userbase is tiny compared to PS360PC. Pretty reasonable to assume most WiiU owners do own one of these. Most sales are made in the first few weeks after release. Miss that window and everyone interested in the game has already bought it. -> Late port BOMBA

Personal opinion here: I won't buy a game I already played on my PC on the WiiU again. If the WiiU version isn't ready to release at the same time as the other versions I probably won't buy it. Simple as that.