-
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
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
Imru’ al-Qays;126171656 said:
Exactly.
Of course a lot of Nintendo console owners have another system or PC and play multiplat stuff, shooters etc. etc.
The point is ports of those games to Wii U still sell shitty because most of that group would rather play them on PS4/X1 with better graphics and because that's where their friends play online. And most Nintendo only gamers are Nintendo only because they don't like those type of games, so they don't care about the ports of stuff like AC.
Thus there just isn't much of a market for those type of third party AAA games on Wii U, so it's just not worth bothering with ports. I mean what's left? Nintendo first gamers who can't afford another console or PC and would like the ports? Nintendo diehards who refuse to buy other consoles? Super niche, in an already small install base.
Muchi Muchi Pink
Member
Imru al-Qays;126171656 said:
TW101 would have been ignored by the PS4/XB1 crowd as well. All of p* games on PS360 are a good indicator.
Brilliant Disaster
Member
Wii U owners do not buy shitty ass buggy games.
R.I.P Deadly Creatures 2.
Emperor Bohe
Member
i can't really hate, ubisoft was one of the publishers that was actually trying to support the Wii U. that being said, I own a Wii U and i'm probably just going to use it for exclusives.
Fourth Storm
Member
A decent percentage of "Nintendo gamers" may very well want AC and Call of Duty...but as we have seen on Wii U and 3DS, there aren't that many Nintendo gamers out there to begin with. Subtract little kids who haven't caught on to those mature franchises yet (or aren't allowed to play them) and you have the rest who a) don't care or b) have other consoles.
Group b has little reason to buy a third party game that runs poorly and lacks a decent online community/features. This is Nintendo's fault. They've repeatedly shown that they are unwilling to be competitive with hardware and they also refuse to allow for more widespread communication features for fear of harming children.
I agree to an extent with Amir0x on how they can go about rebuilding their software ecosystem. I fear that it may simply be too late for that, however. With the financials the way they are, Nintendo are not in the position to be throwing around money to AAA devs. Costumes and Nintendo character guest appearances have done little in the past to help matters, if we look back to games like the one NBA Street game on Gamecube and then as recently as Tekken Tag Tournament 2 on Wii U. Soul Calibur 2 with Link was an exception to that rule, probably because it was just a perfect fit for the game and SCII GCN was also extremely competitive with the other 2 versions in every other aspect.
I just don't see how this gets turned around without Iwata going back on what he believes are core values (which he keeps reiterating even after the Wii U failure) and massive amounts of money getting spent creating new studios and buying exclusives franchises that western gamers actually care about.
Group b has little reason to buy a third party game that runs poorly and lacks a decent online community/features. This is Nintendo's fault. They've repeatedly shown that they are unwilling to be competitive with hardware and they also refuse to allow for more widespread communication features for fear of harming children.
I agree to an extent with Amir0x on how they can go about rebuilding their software ecosystem. I fear that it may simply be too late for that, however. With the financials the way they are, Nintendo are not in the position to be throwing around money to AAA devs. Costumes and Nintendo character guest appearances have done little in the past to help matters, if we look back to games like the one NBA Street game on Gamecube and then as recently as Tekken Tag Tournament 2 on Wii U. Soul Calibur 2 with Link was an exception to that rule, probably because it was just a perfect fit for the game and SCII GCN was also extremely competitive with the other 2 versions in every other aspect.
I just don't see how this gets turned around without Iwata going back on what he believes are core values (which he keeps reiterating even after the Wii U failure) and massive amounts of money getting spent creating new studios and buying exclusives franchises that western gamers actually care about.
I don't see Nintendo really surviving as a hardware manufacturer for too much longer unless they make some sweeping changes. Though, considering what they've said about creating an OS and supporting that as a platform they have a chance. They have the right idea.
Nintendo's problem has always been that they treat games as toys. Family friendly, fun for all ages. That was great for handhelds as it suited that market perfectly, but they lost ground on the console front for decades as their initial audience grew older (I started with an NES). Their last opportunity to be a contender for the young male demographic that would eventually be the last loyal bastion of console gaming was back during the N64 days and they fucked that up just epically. Wii was a very focused toy. Nintendo basically created that pretty much at the perfect time, as smartphones were on their way and they have supplanted Nintendo's audience nearly completely. Wii would have been a huge hit during the N64 or Gamecube eras as well. But making consoles toys just isn't going to work anymore due to the ease of use, cheapness and ubiquity of smartphones and their games.
Anyone expecting them to release a traditional console and gain traditional third party support with mature titles that we come to expect from the likes of the playstation or xbox families is going to be sorely disappointed. That race ended long ago. Nintendo never played by their game (bending over backwards to gain support and nab major titles), shit Nintendo never even bothered to bestir themselves to create mature titles themselves after the N64 age. One of the biggest game companies and these guys don't even chase that market themselves.
Nintendo's problem has always been that they treat games as toys. Family friendly, fun for all ages. That was great for handhelds as it suited that market perfectly, but they lost ground on the console front for decades as their initial audience grew older (I started with an NES). Their last opportunity to be a contender for the young male demographic that would eventually be the last loyal bastion of console gaming was back during the N64 days and they fucked that up just epically. Wii was a very focused toy. Nintendo basically created that pretty much at the perfect time, as smartphones were on their way and they have supplanted Nintendo's audience nearly completely. Wii would have been a huge hit during the N64 or Gamecube eras as well. But making consoles toys just isn't going to work anymore due to the ease of use, cheapness and ubiquity of smartphones and their games.
Anyone expecting them to release a traditional console and gain traditional third party support with mature titles that we come to expect from the likes of the playstation or xbox families is going to be sorely disappointed. That race ended long ago. Nintendo never played by their game (bending over backwards to gain support and nab major titles), shit Nintendo never even bothered to bestir themselves to create mature titles themselves after the N64 age. One of the biggest game companies and these guys don't even chase that market themselves.
Muchi Muchi Pink
Member
40 mio 3ds.
Mithos
Member
Such a good game on Wii, Deadly Creatures. I'd love a sequel/prequel or HD Remake/Remaster for Wii U.
Imru al-Qays
Banned
Nintendo can't compete with Sony and Microsoft for the core. They're just not positioned to do it: Nintendo couldn't create competitive hardware at this point even if they wanted to, and bankrolling a bunch of Naughty Dogs and Bungies isn't going to do anything for them so long as their hardware is so out of date.
Nintendo needs to find some alternative audience and cater to them properly. They were halfway there with the Wii, but they apparently didn't understand their new audience at all.
Or maybe there is no such alternative audience and they should just give up.
Fourth Storm
Member
And this is relevant to getting mature AAA games on their console how?
I certainly give them credit as selling that amount of any consumer device is no easy task, but we see even that (completely different) market disappearing before their eyes.
The unified OS seems to me a way to maintain doing what they're doing. Yes, they'll be able to be more efficient in their software production, but the only thing that is going to save them in the long run is by shaking up what type of software they are producing as well as how they're selling it, and re-evaluating which hardware features western consumers find appealing.
Imru al-Qays;126175316 said:
The audience was fickle. Not only that but they always try to target the same audience twice. Family friendly games from their handhelds and consoles. Wii was a fun diversion so it sold well. But historically their consoles haven't fared very well and that's a major reason why. I mean, if you buy the handheld you get all that Nintendo goodness cheaper, why bother with their console. For what, even MORE Nintendo games? Variety is the spice of life.
People who own a Wii U don't seem to be interested with playing these "mature" games, I'm not sure what's so terrible about it.
Nintendo focuses on another type of game and their latest consoles have been affected by droughts but I think that if they manage do that unified architecture thing, their next handeld/home console will have good support even if only them develop things for it.
Ubisoft is being smart here because there's no reason for them to develop "mature" titles in a console where they don't sell. However, they are not taking the chance of developing titles that would sell on the Wii U with enough support either. Well, Ubisoft at least tried with Rayman Legends but for some reason nobody likes Rayman... In any case, third parties see developing huge expensive immensive scale "mature" games for PSBox as a better investments than developing smaller scale "Nintendo-ish" games for WiiU (or even multiplatform) at the moment, and it's understandable, but I feel they could gain from trying to develop smaller stuff for the Wii U.
Nintendo focuses on another type of game and their latest consoles have been affected by droughts but I think that if they manage do that unified architecture thing, their next handeld/home console will have good support even if only them develop things for it.
Ubisoft is being smart here because there's no reason for them to develop "mature" titles in a console where they don't sell. However, they are not taking the chance of developing titles that would sell on the Wii U with enough support either. Well, Ubisoft at least tried with Rayman Legends but for some reason nobody likes Rayman... In any case, third parties see developing huge expensive immensive scale "mature" games for PSBox as a better investments than developing smaller scale "Nintendo-ish" games for WiiU (or even multiplatform) at the moment, and it's understandable, but I feel they could gain from trying to develop smaller stuff for the Wii U.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
Imru’ al-Qays;126175316 said:
False, and you know this.
Nintendo won't compete on hardware because
1) They've been successful at cheap components at half the performance (or less) of their competitors in the past
2) They prefer different architecture than competitors. This has been a constant since the SNES days. Whether this decision is driven by internal developer familiarity or just plain being difficult, we will never know. Nintendo's spoken about a hardware differentiation before. They don't like off-the-shelf components whereas Sony and Microsoft went pretty off the shelf this generation, and Microsoft has beaten Nintendo with Generic PC Parts before (Xbox).
Whereas truthfully nowadays even a generic PC part would handily thrash old-gen consoles (AMD APUs, Intel Iris IGP CPUs)
Fourth Storm
Member
Imru’ al-Qays;126175316 said:
They certainly could create more capable hardware, especially if they launched later. The problem is by doing so they risk losing the little family audience they have left because $400 is pretty much the cheapest they could sell it at. Even if they don't take a loss on hardware, such a price point takes away the one advantage they have usually relied on: price.
Nintendo definitely made some missteps in their attempt at maintaining the Wii's casual audience, but it may have been the same result regardless. Smart phones simply make more sense in the daily lives of casuals. I think Iwata sees how important it is for a device to be integrated into users' day to day activities and QoL will try to achieve this in a unique fashion. Whether it succeeds is anyone's guess.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
And...
3. A lot of their base won't buy $400+ consoles. That's pricey for the younger kid/family set--especially in the face of handme down smartphones/tablets with super cheap gams that work just as well to babysit young kids.
4. Even fewer core gamers would buy a Nintendo console as a second or third machine at $400+.
Wasn't the WiiU supposed to be related to X360's architecture to make ports easy?
Always seemed to me that way.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Coming right alongside The Master Chief Collection for PS4.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
Their base is diminishing and using higher power processors would not essentially equate to higher price. You're essentially swapping out one component for another. Nintendo preferred a customized expensive package design instead of a more elegant, possibly cheaper AMD APU design.
Palette Swap
Member
To be fair, "idea" is a bit generous going by the quotes as it was a very broad, market-oriented description. It says nothing about a shared design vision. It's more about an end goal than the means to reach it.
What I mean is that you can immediately identify a Nintendo game by its design and there was a time where third parties could feel at home on their systems, as their games resonated with the DNA of the system. I'd say DS was the last great example of this for Japanese third parties.
But on the western (*) third party side, they do have a perception problem in the sense that 95% of western games have a Playstation/Xbox identity. It's up to Nintendo to foster an actual alternative design philosophy among third parties and not just by saying "let's chase other demographics" but by setting a successful shared tone and creating actual incentives for third parties to do it. To an extent, I believe this has been happening with Sega for some time now as their games are (relatively) more successful on Nintendo platforms because they share a sense of design.
The Sega part feels incredibly ironic to me as I believe the current young male tone of a large part of the industry really goes back to how the Playstation brand built itself back when the first Playstation launched in the West. And that was a direct continuation of SoA's Genesis strategy. Sega in those days really wrote the playbook on how to attack Nintendo and create growth thanks to third parties and an edgy focus, the PS brand cranked it all up to eleven and Xbox kind of specialized it.
Anyway, my point is that the very approach these guys took by creating a friendly environment to third parties is exactly what Nintendo needs. If they want third parties, obviously.
(Western is shorthand for North America and Western Europe here)
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
If they want to have equal power to whatever Sony and MS are putting out, get equal ports etc. then it's going to cost the same as those consoles. They can't take huge losses, and if they go cheaper and still stay underpowered they are in the same boat as now where a lot of gamers will scoof at the hardware and devs won't bother with ports.
They've got to find a way to expand the market as they're highly unlikely to ever get core gamers back. If they can't do that, and still want to make games, they need to take a long hard look at getting out of hardware. They'd have to fail another time or two to ever get to that point though with their long history and amount of cash sitting around from the Wii and DS huge sales.
Imru al-Qays;126167756 said:
A Wii on the level of the 360 (same amount of ram, ~half gpu power, ~2/3 cpu power) for 350$ would still have sold like hot cakes.
This could have been their (last) chance to come back.
The first people that bought a Wii were hardcore gamers, but they left when motion controls wore off and they realized that, aside from motion controls, the Wii was a last gen console.
The audience was there, but the console wasn't.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
The PS4 launched and made profit for each machine at launch, at a decent margin. Pachter estimated $275 build price per console. Wii U launched at $299, had a deluxe at $349 and still managed to lose money on even Deluxe units. They're still forecasting breaking even on consoles as they sell, 20 months after launch.
Somewhere along the line there was a huge design mistake.
And it's not like they were without options 20 months ago either.
Imru al-Qays
Banned
TreasureHunterG
Banned
COD3 Wii outsold PS3 version. Wii version sold sbove 2M, while PS3 version was 1.5M. Deal with it.
Madden 07 Wii outsold PS3 version and Madden 08 sold on par. After the All-Play aesthetics change onward was when PS3 got upper hand over it. Such change, not only in aesthetics, but in gameplay, was a terrible decision and affected the sales in the long run. EA is the only one to blame here.
Not really. As I mentioned, there was, yes, an audience for core games in it's first years, as many of them got solid sales, some of them outsold PS3 versions. I don't have access to the numbers, but if someone had, it'll confirm this.
That's how third-parties went with Wii after Nintendo's decision to focus on casuals and family games. In it's first years, Wii got many PS2 ports to test it's userbase. Later on, they saw Nintendo was promoting the machine for this casuals and felt safe to follow them, despite the existence of a solid core audience there.
Some detractors try to paint Wii as a casual only platform, which is true at some extent, but not in it's first years. Sure, many core games were ports from PS2 and even GCN titles, but surprisingly sold way above the expected. Even Red Steel, which got awful reviews, was a million seller. Nintendo (and third-parties) didn't managed to secure the core audience present in it's ecosystem for the long run, due for the heavy focus on the casual/family audience, so the core audience, dissatisfacted with this direction, decided to abandon it. No secret why core games, after the infamous Wii Music E3 presentation as epitome of Nintendo's casual direction, took a dive since then.
PotionBleue
Member
Pachter does not give reliable estimations lol
Fourth Storm
Member
Every console BoM I've ever seen has been way under. Either that or the hardware manufacturers are straight up hiding profits, which makes no sense when you have to answer to investors.
protomouse
Member
Imru al-Qays;126171656 said:
I consider myself enough evidence of that. If that's not to your satisfaction, I'm sure there are plenty of Wii U gamers both on and off GAF that could tell you all about the games they play on their Wii U, complementary consoles and/or PCs. Hence, generalization. Also, if you can't see how you expressed yourself in quite a condescending fashion, furthering this thread of discussion will be fruitless. In any case, such a conversation would more suitably be carried out in private. I just wanted to call this to your attention. You're not the first one to wrongfully try to pin Nintendo's failings on their customers, but you were certainly the first one likening them to cultural eremites and savage islanders while doing so.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
and CoD 3 on PS2 outsold them all.
so what? there were a lot more of a playerbase on the playstation ecosystem than the nintendo one. consolidate technology on the next gen platforms and convert people up as they adopt new systems.
CoD was successful on the Wii, this is a fact. A lot of people made a lot of money on Wii.
But to say it was more than the other systems is not looking at reality.
Also, Wii U is not Wii.
Prevolition
Member
I did my part. But I guess I'm a niche Wii U gamer who buys 3rd party games.
lol
lol
Nintendojitsu
Banned
No and no. $250 was perfect anything else would've have been pressing their luck. as evident by the 3DS and Wii U launch prices. The price point is one of the key reasons for the success of the Wii early on. Not that an accesible control scheme and new kinds of games didn't hurt. heh
metalslimer
Member
Well I think the point (not that I really agree) is that if CoD3 outsold the PS3 version why was there no attempt to get Modern Warfare on the system in a timely matter. Honestly, I think the lack of CoD4 was the death of 3rd parties on the Wii. The reason I disagree though is that the horrendous online of the Wii would've kept it from becoming as big as it was on other platforms. I highly doubt CoD4 Wii would have outsold CoD4 PS3
We honestly don't know. The Wii U and 3DS failed at higher prices because the Wii U was had no games and was unappealing and the 3DS had no games.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
Wii and PS3 were the next-gen systems at the time and they were competing against each other for the next-gen market. PS2 was losing it's steam by that time. Wii version outsold the PS3 version, so they had upper hand by that time for the next-gen race.
Really, this isn't that hard to understand.
Hard to predict, but even if PS3 managed to outsell Wii, it would be for a way less difference.
Imru al-Qays
Banned
I'm not pinning Nintendo's failings on their customers, I'm pinning Nintendo's failings on their inability to understand their customers. Nintendo's core fans (the ones who've followed them through the wilderness to buy the Wii U as their only console) are by and large conservative, insular, and divorced from the mainstream of the console gaming market. They play Nintendo games and they do not like non-Nintendo games, especially games that are violent or mature in content. That doesn't mean that you as an individual are these things, and it's not even inherently a bad thing to be, but it is nevertheless the truth for the bulk of console owners who only have Wii Us.
Consider for a moment the difficulty of downporting a game designed for an HD console to a console with the graphical power of a GameCube and you'll understand why Modern Warfare was never released on the Wii.
metalslimer
Member
You're forgetting about the 360 version here. If you're point is that they should have released CoD going forward on the Wii in a timely manner I agree, but CoD4 exploded due to it's online multiplayer which would have been severely gimped on the Wii. In the end, the series became a billion dollar franchise per game so I don't really think they made a bad decision ignoring the Wii. Call of Duty just didn't have very many other games cultivating that type of audience on the Wii. While MS obviously wrapped up the shooter market early last gen with stuff like Gears and Halo, Nintendo expected 3rd parties to fill in that hole themselves. A lot of this goes to back to what I was saying before. A lot Nintendo gamers own other systems.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
Online mode was fine for COD4 Reflex Edition (sure, no way compared to PSN or XBLA, but still good), so no, online network isn't a valid excuse.
Imru’ al-Qays;126181433 said:
Treyarch did a great job into porting it and COD series got a Wii version along with the PS3/360 since then.
Fourth Storm
Member
Imru’ al-Qays;126181433 said:
Now, you're pushing it. I would love to see some survey data as to how many of the ~7m Wii U owners don't own last gen systems or PCs capable of playing on decent settings.
The question is do you blame the current situation on Nintendo with Wii U's lacking hardware, poor marketing, and anemic online/eShop ecosystem or do you blame third parties for putting Wii U ports on the backburner and not providing all the DLC? As Nintendo's platforms are, in the end, their responsibility, I am going with the former.
What do you want to tell me?
That a console that was sold out endlessly and were they upped their productions rates again and again and which you could sell for crazy prices on ebay, wouldn't have sold like hotcakes cause of 100$ more?
metalslimer
Member
Let's not forget NIntendo didn't even have a method of distributing DLC back in 2007 when CoD4 came out. But looking back, the real reason CoD4 seemed to skip the Wii was that Infinity Ward seemed to want to focus on PS3/360 at the time and like most developers had no idea the Wii would be the success it was. It's really hard to fault developers for ignoring the Wii that first year. It's success caught everyone, including Nintendo, off guard. By the time it was apparent how big the Wii was going to be, a new developed game wouldn't have come out until years later. It's also hard to blame them when Nintendo set the example with their own Wii ____ line of software on how to make big money.
Really, I do fault developers for the terrible excuses they made in regards to Wii development (i.e. we can't compete with Nintendo), but it was up to Nintendo to lead the development community. If Nintendo had a functional western development arm last generation, things might have turned out very differently.
Really, I do fault developers for the terrible excuses they made in regards to Wii development (i.e. we can't compete with Nintendo), but it was up to Nintendo to lead the development community. If Nintendo had a functional western development arm last generation, things might have turned out very differently.
I did what I could. I bought AC 3 launch day with my Wii-U, AC 4, Rayman Legends, and Zombie U. Even though I have a PS4, I was waiting to purchase Watch Dogs on Wii-U. If Assassin's Creed Rouge came out this fall I would pick it up.
I wanted to prove that Nintendo fans buy 3rd party games. I give Ubisoft credit for sticking out with the Wii-U for this long. I guess I'm just fighting a losing battle.
I wanted to prove that Nintendo fans buy 3rd party games. I give Ubisoft credit for sticking out with the Wii-U for this long. I guess I'm just fighting a losing battle.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
COD3 sold above 2M and by 2007 Wii was already selling like hot cakes, so no, at least for Activision, they were already aware that COD had an audience there. They could let Treyarch port COD4 Wii simultaneously to PS3/360, like they did with all Wii versions, if they wanted.
So yes, they can be blamed for it.
metalslimer
Member
Did CoD3 sell 2 millionon the Wii at launch or was it spread out over years?
I appreciate the effort in this reply, but nothing here strikes me as a signicantly fruitful endeavour. Nintendo let third parties use Nintendo IP with the Gamecube(F-zero, Starfox, Link in Soul Calibur), it didn't work. They still do it now(Hyrule Warriors, SMTxFE). Nintendo consoles already have Nintendo IP, more of it from 3rd parties won't make much of a difference in console sales and it won't make 3rd parties shift their focus from MS/Sony.
Funding indies; if it doesn't work then losses will be even higher than they were these part 3 years. To have a chance with making indies into AA they've have to spends hundreds of millions every year(bigger risk of losses if it doesn't work). Better to spend that money on expanding proven first party development than unproven indies.
Funding/partnering with established 3rd parties will be even more expensive and thus even more risky. They also tried this with Gamecube and Resident Evil and it didn't work. Ports won't help them so If Nintendo want to take this approach they'd need 10+ exclusive games a year which would cost them 500M-1B every year and even then wouldn't guarantee a significant shift as they'd still be outnumbered by Sony/MS game libraries. Even then, good luck convincing top tier developers to forego making GTA/CoD/Destiny etc on PS/Xbox and instead making a new IP on a Nintendo box.
Coming up with their own bold new ideas? They had Wii Sports and Wii Fit, it worked for console sales and hence was the right approach, but third parties didn't play ball and didn't even try to directly cater to and cultivate the new audience.
If Nintendo did all of this third parties would give them a few scraps and carry on focusing on MS/Sony. Nintendo console sales won't go up and they'd lose money they invested to do the above.
Again, Nintendo did their job perfectly on the Wii. Third parties dropped the ball and that audience was lost.
metalslimer
Member
Well except for that whole online network thing, the hardware being based on an architecture that was hard to develop for, and the last 2 years of the system.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
well, it hasn't even sold thru 1MM units, so never.
While everything is up for debate, I disagree with what's been said.
Activision handled Wii very well last generation, and were one of the big guys who made a lot of money off the platform.
But again, irrelevant. Wii us not the Wii U.
It has the kids and families now but not enough raw numbers to sustain these types of games. Proof is in the sales pudding. I imagine it's up to Nintendo how badly they want the content at this point.
ADANIEL1960
Neo Member
Why do you support a platform for games like AC and Watch dogs when the manufacturers of the platform have stated they won't makes games like this (takes too much time and money) and do very little to support them?
Just seems silly doesn't it!