Generally because PC is a better platform in almost every respect to play your standard multi platform games and shoot bangs, with the additional benefit of a generally better experience, an open platform, cost savings and having even more exclusives than a Nintendo platform (which tend to have the most exclusives on consoles) by orders of magnitude.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ubi - "Wii U owners don't buy AC", Watch_Dogs their last M-rated WiiU release.
- Thread starter Mushroomer25
- Start date
Generally because PC is a better platform in almost every respect to play your standard multi platform games and shoot bangs, with the additional benefit of a generally better experience, an open platform, cost savings and having even more exclusives than a Nintendo platform (which tend to have the most exclusives on consoles) by orders of magnitude.
I have owned most platforms and only played the GTA series before out of that list (never heard about Castle Crashers). So I'm not really missing out much if I didn't own another platform. But of course, I still get other consoles... for the great exclusives that can't be found on Nintendo systems like, Rime. Only game worth buying for me, atm.
The sad thing is that, even with all this, Ubisoft is the third-party that treated Nintendo best. I think it's crazy to blame the console holders, though, or to say they don't want mature games. They just didn't want the games Ubisoft was selling. I know ZombiU is well regarded around here, but it was a survival horror game - a dead genre - with a shovelware title and box art. Were they surprised it didn't do gangbusters? They delayed Watch Dogs & haven't shown any special features for it, even though the game concept cries out for a great second screen implementation - will anyone be surprised when it launches for $60 and tanks? They put a stake through the heart of hype for Rayman Legends on Wii U by delaying it and making it multi-plat - was anyone surprised with the result?
When your best third-party partner is treating you this way, it's time to work on the quality of your partnerships, Nintendo.
Shmuely Bully
Member
Selling best in one country (the UK) over a launch period does not mean that something sold well enough to greenlight a sequel. Rayman Legends was a very enjoyable game for me so I'd welcome one, but I doubt it will happen when everything we heard said it bombed.
Night Angel
Member
I understand that (PC owner), but that was not the point the post he was responding to made. With the PC, Xbox, or PlayStation, gamers can access almost every title released in a given year. With only a Wii-U, gamers can only access exclusives plus a small handful of ports. The relative performance of the platforms is not even relevant to this discussion.
The best combo to play everything is obviously Nintendo + PC, but i disagree with the Sony/Microsoft combo.
A "serious gamer" can avoid PC if he have a Xbox or a PS4, cause he gets exclusive and all third party titles, so he gets pretty much everything. Except Nintendo titles. (And PC exclusive sure... but ... yeah...)
On Nintendo you only have exclusive. So you are "forced" to take another machine if you want to play more than 20% (random number) of the nowdays world game library.
Do you understand better ?
sörine;126088358 said:
Actually you can blame Ubisoft. I don't agree with this idea you can't blame (not saying completely but partly) a game publisher or developer for when their game fails and they decide to pack and go home. That's not true at all. Ubisoft is the one that decided to release an already established series (5th main series entry and 11th entry overall) on a Nintendo console without any push to ensure that version would do well. For many weeks of the initially promotion of AC3 the Wii U logo was actually missing form the official trailers and website for the game. Only appearing at the end. Not even mentioned when they talked about the game in interviews from what I recall with sometimes the interviewer being the one to acknowledge the Wii U version. With AC4 it was clear it wouldn't get any additional content. Which is actually fine I feel. If it isn't integral to the plot extra content is loss I can take. You have to pay for it after all. However that image that paints is a version of the game that is somehow inferior and shouldn't be bought over the others. This is in addition to the issues that were never addressed when it came to them releasing AC3 I feel. They just added another sku without even attempting to sell Nintendo hardware owners (either only or multi-system owners that lean Nintendo (that likely didn't bother with the series on other systems the owned)) on the game.
ZombiU. Ubisoft sent ZombiU to die plain and simple. I enjoy the game, as I enjoyed the AC games (3 more then 4) but Ubisoft is not free of blame here. Then there is the lake of stupid they pulled with Rayman Legends which I really should not talk about or this post will be massive. I really would like to know if Ubisoft regrets what they did here. If they believe it cost them even more sales overall given it did best on Wii U and released at a time people were clearly buy other games after they delayed it for the other systems where it went on to bomb.
As for pairings then Nintendo + PC is a good way of going. I've accepted a long time ago this would have to be done. However I think PC up-keep makes this a significantly more expensive route then Nintendo + Sony or Microsoft hardware.
Friend of Sonic
Member
I'll be thankful for ZombiU. They gave it a solid go even though the Wii proved tough for a lot of third party games.
And if Watch Dogs actually comes out. Well, you have to appreciate that to a certain degree. The game has potential to be a treat to play on Wii U.
And if Watch Dogs actually comes out. Well, you have to appreciate that to a certain degree. The game has potential to be a treat to play on Wii U.
freshVeggie
Member
They were the biggest Third-Party supporting WiiU since the beginning, right? Really hard to blame them as they really tried hardest.
Shame it wasn't meant to be. Lots of great games will be missed by WiiU owners. Gotta be hard gaming only on that these days.
Who owns the rights to ZombiU? Nintendo or Ubi?
Shame it wasn't meant to be. Lots of great games will be missed by WiiU owners. Gotta be hard gaming only on that these days.
Who owns the rights to ZombiU? Nintendo or Ubi?
I like sports games- stuff like Madden and NHL don't come out on PC. I'd have loved to have gone PC and WiiU, but I had to buy a PS4 because of those third party games that still don't come to PC.
Then why are they still publishing Vita games?
jts
...hate me...
I don't see any actual evidence of that but I'll take your word for it.
it's a shitty situation, and it's Ubisoft and Nintendo's fault. Nintendo certainly played a bigger role in creating a not very ideal enviuronment for third parties, but those devs claiming their games won't sell well because the WiiU's lackluster sales are telling only half the truth
I kind of feel bad for Ubi. Even though I don't care for the Assassin's Creed games, they did give a commendable effort towards the Wii U. The problem is most people don't own just a Wii U (like me) so they get their non-Nintendo games on other, technologically superior consoles. And it seems like Nintendo just doesn't give a damn, like it's happy with what it has and could care less if Ubi released anything on the console to begin with.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
I can't blame them, really. Ubisoft actually tried to support WiiU. Their owners are a very alienated userbase only interested in buying Nintendo games and anything else. That's how Nintendo actually cultivated their fans to act in these last years, though. They brought ZombiU, Assassin's Creed III and IV, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Rayman Legends... they didn't gave a shit about it. This "missing features", "late releases", "inferior version" are faulty excuses and doesn't hold any water because PS3/PS4/360/XBO owners bought games plagued with issues. This is more a cover up excuse to hide the lack of interest in buying them.
Shmuely Bully
Member
It's lackluster sales and a user base that has little interest in their games as represented by sales. We could go around in circles all day about how some ports might not be great, or as good as they should be even, but if people don't buy them they shouldn't be surprised that they don't get more. Ultimately Genesis users bought third-party, PS1 users bought third-party games, PS2 users bought third-party games, PS3 users bought third-party games, and Xbox One users are buying third-party games. None of those bits of hardware had the best multiplats across the board or anything close to it.
With what we know of Ubisoft's sales on Wii U I would be surprised if they even made up the cost of porting the multi-platform titles, never mind Zombi U's budget. Nintendo or their users can point fingers all day, but with the kind of abysmal results they got despite repeated investments it would be insane to continue, particularly given the sales trends and Wii U's entirely different hardware architecture.
I'm only guessing, but it seems like common sense.sörine;126096992 said:
That said, I don't think Ubi have any Vita titles in the pipeline. What support are you referring to?
Edit: They don't even bother updating their Vita product page.
Benzychenz
Member
Make more good games like Rayman Legends and I'll buy them Ubisoft.
AC and WD doesn't cut it for me.
AC and WD doesn't cut it for me.
That doesn't paint those fans in a good light y'know.
Why is this being said, and I've heard it before, like this is a good thing?
TreasureHunterG
Banned
Not for third-parties. They buy their games. Something Nintendo fans don't.
Because the common excuse to justify not buying Nintendo versions of multiplatform games is because they have issues. Sony and Microsoft users don't have this problem.
late ports aren't entirely Nintendo's fault, tho. it's obvious these games won't sell as much as their counterparts on other consoles with firmly estabilished userbases. The fact there's a tradition of buying, say, COD on the 360 is indeed all on Nintendo. They should have aligned with the other companies when they had the chance, with a console appropriately specced and most of all, getting these games at day one like the other two. But Nintendo does things differently, and it came with the cost of losing the third party big hitters
It was just a quick example, maybe Far Cry? HL2? Portal 2? SSFIV? LoL? BioShock? Batman Arkham~? Burnout? Im not going to enlist the thousands of games that fits here, it was just an idea.
Never said you were. I used examples to talk about the majority of people, not individual cases. For most gamers a nintendo console is not enough, for very different reasons.
The problem was aggravated with the Wii. A significantly weaker hardware than all of their competitors (PC, PS360) that received crappy ports.
And of course another problem that can be seen here. Some Nintendo fans are very closed to Ninty games, is not a bad thing, but it hurts any other developer. The hardcore Nintendo fans who buy their consoles the first months are not going to play or try other games than Nintendo ones.
Question to Darius and BGBW:
¿did you play any AC game before the WiiU versions?
Astral Dog
Member
Well, at least they tried, there is not much that can be done with the Wii U now, its simply not a good environment for third parties or for Nintendo, lets hope they learn something and their next system is more successful
sörine;126096410 said:
Vita games have a reputation of actually selling? Maybe not much market size but the people who have them are known for getting games for them. Also... people have pointed out, what Vita support? I guess Ubi put Child of Light on it recently but in general most Vita support these days is indie and Japanese developers. I'm pretty sure this year is probably the last year you'll see anything other than that on the Vita
.Honestly, Nintendo's been doing this to themselves for a while. And they really need to pull what Sony did for PS4 and not just say they are wanting more third party but show it in their actions. Even then, Nintendo is going to have a helluva harder time winning third parties back. At least while Sony was not developer friendly and had a platform that was hard to develop for, they still had an audience that was buying games and had not gotten a reputation for not buying third parties. Nintendo has to not only show that they are now really willing to work with developers, they have to some how try to foster their market back to buying third parties and some how show this.
I'm seeing this statement repeated very often, and I think its very strange that people are willing to buy games from companies even when they are fully aware it is plagued with issues. I understand that they really want to play those games... but you're simply encouraging the devs to keep doing the same thing for future releases of the title. Perhaps, I'm too used to buying games that run well without the need for patches to fix crap. Oh well... it is the same result either way.
Bluemercury
Member
I would rather have them make zombiu2 rather than watch dogs, and it would probably be cheaper for them....
Naughty_Doge
Member
There goes the last big publisher. Can't say they didn't try.
EA publish the legacy version of FIFA each year. No risk.
Ubi tried some Gameloft caliber games early on. Since then it's been two Rayman games and Child of Light. Piece of piss with the Ubi Art framework I'd imagine.
Neither has offered a commitment on the level that they did with the Wii U, so it's a weird complaint really.
you don't really need a crystal ball to predict Watch Dogs on Wii U will flop
Shmuely Bully
Member
I don't think that most companies expect later ports to do as well sales-wise as if they got the game on release. Late or not third-party games don't sell on Nintendo consoles anywhere near as well as on other platforms, even adjusting for the size of the install base.
Outside of a few narrow genres third-party games simply don't sell on Nintendo consoles anymore. It's not an issue that is going to be solved by third-parties because they can't afford to subsidize development for a period of years when Nintendo has shown no interest in building a user base that would buy their games. Even ignoring how inherently risky an industry like videogame development can be they'd eventually be sued for failing to meet their fiduciary duties to shareholders if these sorts of results continued.
Waylon Drums
Member
I was actually planning on getting the Wii U version all along but I just got a surprise PS4 and now I'm torn. With the companion app, I don't even think I'll be missing much of the "second screen" experience.
If they had released it at the same time as the others, they'd have had an absolute sale from me.
RGamer2009
Neo Member
90% of this thread doesn't seem to get it.
Ubisoft is not ABANDONING the Wii U...yet. They are simply not going to be making any more Mature rated games on the platform after Watch_Dogs.
You will still get Rayman games, Just Dance games, and games like that. Just probably not shooters.
When the day comes that they just up and leave entirely? That will be an interesting day.
Ubisoft is not ABANDONING the Wii U...yet. They are simply not going to be making any more Mature rated games on the platform after Watch_Dogs.
You will still get Rayman games, Just Dance games, and games like that. Just probably not shooters.
When the day comes that they just up and leave entirely? That will be an interesting day.
Dave you're taking away my fun
Hot Coldman
Banned
I have no idea why Watch_Dogs is even still happening on Wii U. Seemed like they would have been better off cancelling it ages ago.
Heck, they clearly reached a point where they decided they didn't have the man-power to develop the last-gen versions, the current-gen versions, the PC game AND the Wii U game all at the same time, so why not just take it round the back of the shed right there and then?
Possibly they were predicting possible momentum for the console after MK8 that would result in a better sales ideal for WD U, but that seems like it would be flawed logic.
Heck, they clearly reached a point where they decided they didn't have the man-power to develop the last-gen versions, the current-gen versions, the PC game AND the Wii U game all at the same time, so why not just take it round the back of the shed right there and then?
Possibly they were predicting possible momentum for the console after MK8 that would result in a better sales ideal for WD U, but that seems like it would be flawed logic.