Support NeoGAF

[Aquamarine]

It's a miracle that watch dogs even gets a release. There are plenty of healthy systems available to develop games for (mobile, pc, next gen console ...) so why bother with the WiiU?

Well, Nintendo has been touting Watch_Dogs for quite a while now...so I'm guessing any misgivings from Ubisoft's executive team have been compensated with some form of marketing / distribution / royalty deal from Nintendo of America / Nintendo of Europe.

I really wanted to support Ubisoft games on Wii U but after the lame job they did porting AC IV there makes me wonder if Watch_Dogs will be the same with tons of technical problems and stuff. They offer inferior/bad ports of their games how do they expect them to sell well? Hope this extra months they taking on making the Wii U version are worth it and they can manage to bring a decent port. I will buy it just because I'm interested to see how they implement the Gamepad features on the game since they did a great job with that on Zombi U and because I haven't played a sandbox game in years.

Well, it's just one big negative feedback loop, isn't it?

Ubisoft makes mediocre port of game -> Core fans don't buy it because "it's a mediocre port" -> Ubisoft uses this as proof there is no core interest in Wii U -> Ubisoft invests fewer resources into developing future ports to keep costs down -> Ubisoft makes mediocre port of game...at lower frequencies than before

Part of the blame lies with Ubisoft but there's an undeniable, inherent weakness in the Wii U software ecosystem that prioritises Nintendo 1st-party and little else. I don't have faith that...even if they were great ports...they would sell comfortably for Ubisoft. The sales situation just isn't at that level. When you have to worry whether or not the revenue from the port will make back the budget invested into it, that's when it starts being a waste of time to port things over.

This weakness has plagued the console right since launch...it spooked away the likes of EA and Take-Two very quickly, and now it's finally reaching Ubisoft as well.

 

[pvpness]

I'd say they will be missed, but according to their own numbers that's not going to be the case for the majority of Wii U owners.

Blaming consumers for Ubisoft's failings on the system is stupid. When do we ever blame consumers? Ubi put a bunch of properties on Wii U that failed, that's on them for not doing the research to find out what people wanted to buy. I'm assuming they've now done the research which is why they're pulling out on the m-rated market on Wii U.

 

[metalslimer]

The "Wii u gamers are smarter and more wise with their money to buy nothing but the perfect game" excuse for sales gives me a chuckle every time

Me as well. Nintendo gamers are obviously smarter and dont ever buy bad games...

If the argument is that Nintendo gamers have other platforms than it never made sense to release on Wii U in the first place because they have other platforms to play the game on.

 

[topplehat]

Gimped Wii U ports especially don't sell well. Mass Effect 3 was released on Wii U (with none of the follow up DLC) as the full trilogy released elsewhere for the same price. Watch Dogs comes out months after it has been released on every other platform known to man. Not sure what the state of AC3/4 were DLC-wise on the Wii U.

 

[Miles X]

If those companies choose to tell Nintendo "to piss off," that's on them. My concern as a consumer is whether the products these companies sell is worth the money. If Ubisoft's whole defense is "Hey, at least we released it," they shouldn't be blaming the consumers for their failures on Wii U.

And what was wrong with those Ubi games to the point of them selling atrociously? WiiU/Nintendo fans are all too quick to call the trash but they were pretty much the same as on other systems. It's pretty evident the userbase is just not there, and it doesn't matter how good any core multiplatform game is on the WiiU, it won't sell.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

It did not, actually. I think we're talking past each other. I'm talking about demographics.

I'm talking about demographics, too. Like I said, SNES had a big array of different genres. Let's take a look:

Platforms: Mario, Megaman, DK, Super Metroid, Kirby, Super Castlevania, Metal Warriors, Blackthorne, Adventure Island, Joe & Mac, Earthworm Jim
Racing: Top Gear, Lamborghini, Rock N Roll Racing, Super Mario Kart, F-Zero, Super Off Road, Street Racing, Uniracers
Shooters: Gradius, Contra, R-Type, Star Fox, Doom, Parodius, Axelay, UN Squadron, Super Star Wars, Sunset Riders, Smash TV, Aero Fighters
RPGs: Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Dragon Quest, Earthbound, Secret of Mana, Breath of Fire, Terranigma, Zelda, Illusion of Gaia
Simulators: SimCity, Harvest Moon, Pilotwings
Puzzles: Tetris Attack, Bust-A-Move, Kirby's Avalanche, Bomberman
Fighting: Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, World Heroes, Samurai Shodown, Fatal Fury
Beat em Ups: Final Fight, TMNT, Ninja Warriors, King of Dragons, Double Dragon, Battletoads
Strategy: Fire Emblem, Ogre Battle, Actraiser, Bahamut Lagoon, Lemmings, New Horizons
Sports: International Superstar Soccer, NBA Jam, NBA Live, Madden, FIFA, Super Punch Out, Tecmo Super Bowl, Super Tennis

This is narrow to you? Wii would dream to have such huge array of different genres.

Look at the Xbox 360 as (pre-Kinect) as an example here: it had a wide variety of software for a narrow demographic. If you were a 16-35 male, then the Xbox 360 had games of all types for you. Sports, swords, guns, you name it. That's the narrowness I'm speaking of. The same could be said of the Gamecube (I don't have access to SNES demographic studies, so if you do please share): it had a hugely disproportionate lean towards males, and a strong skew towards audiences younger than 30.

Xbox audience was always the american teen/mature audience, they never had appeal toward younger or japanese audience. No secret why such titles never managed to appeal for them.

The "casual and family" audience is far, far broader than the "core" audience. The core audience is hugely disproportionately male and hugely disproportionately 16-35. By contrast, the casual audience has virtually everyone else: young children, women, adult professional males, and the elderly.

Yes, they have a broader appeal, but, at the same time, they are restricted as they don't have time, patience, or simply don't care for many other genres. This was Wii's situation from 2008 onward as the platform became mostly focused on this audience.

Furthermore, they hold no loyalty to any brand and they can move in, like happened with the exodus from Wii to smartphones/Facebook. Thus, it's risky to rely mostly or entirely on them.

 

[DrXym]

It's a repeat of the Wii all over. Premium titles don't sell so aim lower. MUCH lower. As in shovelware low. Even then it might not work because the owner base isn't there.

 

[Zombie James]

The third-party situation with Nintendo isn't going to get better unless they get new leadership, imho. The combination of oddball controller, weak hardware, and lacklustre online isn't doing anything to attract the kind of audience third-party developers (who make games other than casual fare) want and need.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Gimped Wii U ports especially don't sell well. Mass Effect 3 was released on Wii U (with none of the follow up DLC) as the full trilogy released elsewhere for the same price. Watch Dogs comes out months after it has been released on every other platform known to man. Not sure what the state of AC3/4 were DLC-wise on the Wii U.

I would be surprised if even EA took the Mass Effect situation as evidence of Wii U's market viability one way or another. But one can look at timely releases such as Batman: Arkham Origins, CoD: Ghosts, Call of Duty: BLOPS2, ACIII, and ACIV - the lack of sales for these games tell a story which is hard to ignore.

 

[moltonasty]

One thing that really bugs me...why do Ubi and EA expect to start with the 3rd entry in a series and expect the audience on that console to eat it up? ie, AssCreed3 and MassFect3.

Like, they could have, you know, put all the games on there? Maybe made a definitive trilogy release with gamepad specific features and all the DLC included? AC and ME had never been on a Nintendo console before, but HEY let's start with number 3! I'm sure those Nintendo fans don't know any better, anyway. And then when they don't sell, it's because "mature titles don't sell." Okayyyy then

 

[protomouse]

Me as well. Nintendo gamers are obviously smarter and dont ever buy bad games...

Guys, let's not take this as representative of the Nintendo community at large. I'm pretty sure stupid things have been said by fans of anything and everything.

 

[Shmuely Bully]

I think you're looking at what currently exists and concluding "it must not be possible," which isn't reasonable.

What we can say is that people aren't currently doing it right now and on home consoles. But they are doing it elsewhere: games like Angry Birds and Clash of Clans are clearly driving iOS game adoption broadly. Thus, it's clearly a thing that can happen. You also have the examples you gave: things like Wii Fit or Wii Sports. That shows that not only is it possible, but it's happened on consoles, and happened recently.

I would argue that the current major console publishers are structurally incapable of making these types of games, just as I'd say Rovio is not going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly make a huge, AAA, M rated hit on Xbox. Any company will have a specific set of skills, and as of right now the skill sets of the major console publishers are focused pretty narrowly on the 16-35 male demographic.

Getting more games, therefore, would not be done by getting EA back on board, or getting Ubisoft to rescind their decision, or something. These companies already have their specific expertise, and trying to get them to radically change the companies' business plan is extremely difficult. A more likely solution would be to create whole new third parties that adopt business plans more like your own.

This is how iOS flourished: like Nintendo's systems, iOS (and Android and Facebook, for that matter), mostly got a cold shoulder from the established third parties, even once it was clear that the ecosystem was growing rapidly. As such, new, major third parties grew in their absence; companies like GungHo and Gameloft are now huge corporations in their own right. These markets couldn't be driven by the established players like Take 2 or Ubisoft, because those companies aren't really skilled at making that sort of game. Instead, it had to be driven by new blood with new design philosophies. I am suggesting that Nintendo is in the same position; their approach to game design is philosophically at odds with the major console publishers, so if they want support, they're going to have to foster new publishers who share their philosophy.

What I think is missing from this is that smart phone gaming works because of the sheer numbers involved. You don't have to appeal to a large percentage of possible buyers because there are literally hundreds of millions of potential buyers. Smart phones were becoming popular years before any big successful games came to them and the real success stories are still few and far between, particularly if we're not counting F2P skulduggery.

Games on smart phones mirror what made Pop Cap and Flash games successful for awhile: the potential audience was enormous and already there while the games themselves were free or inexpensive which between them meant extremely low barriers to entry. Dedicated consoles don't work in the same way. It's a much larger financial investment to buy a gaming console than it is to buy a game for a smart phone/tablet/PC you already bought for other reasons.

That is what makes me doubt the prospects of what you're talking about. Saying that it was done with the Wii doesn't mean much when it was:

A) Extremely inexpensive for a console at launch.
B) Extremely dated in a way that is probably no longer acceptable.
C) Facing few real competitors, none of which had lower barriers to entry.

At least unless Nintendo intends to do something like Steam which runs on commodity hardware I don't see how you would expect them to overcome the greater competition and higher barriers to entry to successfully establish and lock down a large number of developers focusing on non-traditional/underserved genres.

 

[BuzzJive]

Taking your personal feelings aside - which I know is hard - I still have difficulty seeing a scenario in which Rayman Legends being delayed actually turned out to be a 'bad idea' for the project.

And it seems to be cited often in this thread. I suppose that's just people who were upset they had to wait a few more months to play it? It can't be based on the reality of the software sales situation right?

Condescending attitude and baited questions aside...

Wii U owners were starved for content when the original release date arrived. When the delayed release arrived, the library had begun to take root. The sales they missed out on for those 7 months of being a "must have game" would have been more than the sales they made on the other consoles when it finally arrived there. Those other platforms contributed very little to the overall results - especially at full price. There's no way you can argue that they actually gained any mindshare when you look at the actual results on those other platforms.

In the end, more people had the ability to play it, but the evidence doesn't point to them actually wanting to in very large numbers. A release with the XB1 and PS4 versions would have made far more sense for the project. What made it a 'good idea'?

 

[Roo]

The third-party situation with Nintendo isn't going to get better unless they get new leadership, imho. The combination of oddball controller, weak hardware, and lacklustre online isn't doing anything to attract the kind of audience third-party developers (who make games other than casual fare) want and need.

I don't think getting rid of Iwata & co and working on stronger hardware with an standard controller will make any difference.
For better or worse the whole industry sees Nintendo as the redhead stepchild. I don't see third parties suddenly giving it the same support Sony and Microsoft receive even if they had the strongest hardware. It would help yes, but not to turn things around.

 

[sonto340]

I'm trying to see the downside.
No zombiU sequel is a huge bummer, but I played half way through AssCreed2 on my PS3, and I think I have had my fill of "hold R2 and wait for someone to attack you and push the button to counter"
Still always a huge bummer to see less games on my Fvorite Console to play though.

 

[Zombie James]

I don't think getting rid of Iwata & co and working on stronger hardware with an standard controller will make any difference.
For better or worse the whole industry sees Nintendo as the redhead stepchild. I don't see third parties suddenly giving it the same support Sony and Microsoft receive even if they had the strongest hardware. It would help yes, but not to turn things around.

Which is exactly why they need new leadership. Nintendo needs a change in culture and a change in mindset more than anything right now. This "redheaded stepchild" image isn't going to change when the same people keep making the same decisions.

 

[metalslimer]

I'm trying to see the downside.
No zombiU sequel is a huge bummer, but I played half way through AssCreed2 on my PS3, and I think I have had my fill of "hold R2 and wait for someone to attack you and push the button to counter"
Still always a huge bummer to see less games on my Fvorite Console to play though.

So you answered your own question? I always fail to understand these people who say "well it's ok I hate games from Ubi,EA,Activision,Capcom, etc.

 

[SkeptiMism]

Taking your personal feelings aside - which I know is hard - I still have difficulty seeing a scenario in which Rayman Legends being delayed actually turned out to be a 'bad idea' for the project.

And it seems to be cited often in this thread. I suppose that's just people who were upset they had to wait a few more months to play it? It can't be based on the reality of the software sales situation right?

I'd say it is at the very least very arguable that it could've done relatively well if it hadn't been delayed.

When it was about to launch, there had been quite a huge drought of games, and that drought just continued and continued after the original launch day passed. There was almost no software at all until late March (I think there might've been one single indie game on January, though not even sure about that, and Spider Man launched in the beginning of March if I remember correctly).

I also don't think that there was such a melancholy regarding Wii U that came on the later months (the early signs of it could definitely be seen already, but I just don't think it was nearly at the point it later came to reach). Back then people were still hungry for new software, and Rayman would've been a good filler there.

Then when Rayman launched on fall, there was a lot of competition on all the systems. Rayman just couldn't get the exposure it would've deserved. Not to mention it had got a lot of people angry about it, and while the gamers who were angry about it might not have been in such a large amount, they were quite vocal about it and the negative publicity certainly didn't help.

I don't think the game would've sold like crazy at the original launch date, but maybe something like 200-600k (I know that's quite broad, but I dunno). Getting the game into the Wii U owners' hands could've also helped with word of mouth for the other versions, though the game launching on fall would've still crippled its sales.

As a note, I don't personally really care about the game. I might get it eventually though if I ever will have a bit less of a backlog, as I enjoyed that online demo thing.

 

[jimi_dini]

Wii was mostly targeted at casuals and family. Core gaming wasn't the major priority, especially 2008 onward.

You think PS3/360 were targeted at hardcore gamers? You think PS4/Bone is?
That 12-35 male audience is not the same as "core" or "hardcore" gamers.

All sorts of franchises are dumbed down and went the action route to appeal to a much broader audience. Look at Hitman, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil. Just look at Uncharted series. That's hardcore or even "core" to you with its simplistic "platforming"? Or look at AssCreed.

Difference is: Nintendo targets everyone, even people, who aren't gamers at that moment. Which is intelligent and makes sense. Look at gender statistics for example. Wii had way more female gamers than PS3+360 combined.

Sony+Microsoft are primarily targeting that 12-35 male pool. Big budget games nowadays cost way too much money to target an actual hardcore crowd only. That's why for example ZombiU was a stupid idea from a financial standpoint, because it is a game that appeals primarily to that little hardcore gamer crowd. Everyone else will probably not bother, because it's way too unforgiving. There are also no checkpoints at all, just a few save spots and death is permanent. Sort of Demon's Souls/Dark Souls, but in some parts even more hardcore, because you can easily lose all of your equipment.

Ubisoft should have used a smaller budget and released a proper non buggy version right from the beginning. I mean extreme hardcore survival horror and you release your game with game breaking bugs? That's simply not acceptable. And perhaps they should not have released it right when the console was released.

 

[RibMan]

It's all about the audience. Losing Ubisoft's support was expected, as the Wii U has completely failed to attract the audience that would support the AAA-blockbuster games that major publishers put out. The majority of those blockbuster games are M-rated, so it's not really a surprise that Ubisoft has struggled on the Wii U.

With that said, Nintendo faces a much more serious long-term problem in the console space that I think needs to be highlighted. Nintendo's stance on online gaming and networking features needs to change dramatically and it needs to change now. If Nintendo fails to recognize the value of a thriving online community for both core and casual gamers, then Nintendo will almost assuredly never have a successful console again. The couch multi-player experience that Nintendo dominated for generations has been supplanted by the online multi-player experience, and the reality is both core and casual gamers have embraced this connected experience.

Here's where things get even messier. The smaller/independent games that Nintendo could attract to their consoles are also integrating online features. In other words, Nintendo are going to lose out on both the big AAA games and the smaller games due to a lack of a powerful and thriving online infrastructure. It's not just about Call of Duty and Destiny anymore - it's about Minecraft, No Man's Sky etc. If Nintendo are smart, they will actively and aggressively work towards addressing this problem.

Online gaming has always been Nintendo's weakness, and with the way gaming services are evolving, it's looking like a weakness that's getting stronger by the day.

 

[Roo]

Which is exactly why they need new leadership. Nintendo needs a change in culture and a change in mindset more than anything right now. This "redheaded stepchild" image isn't going to change when the same people keep making the same decisions.

That's true.
I already made my mind. This won't change anytime soon.

 

[Ponn]

I have to question the purpose of a Nintendo console in gaming now. I don't mean "Nintendoisdoomed" or they shouldn't exist, I mean literally what is the purpose of a Nintendo console in a living room. Back when Nintendo dominated gaming it was a different landscape with limited platforms. We are in a different time with a plethora of gaming outlets and some like ios/mobile that are just impossible for any gaming company to circumvent because of user base and pricing. Games like CoD and GTA have become the defacto games for teens and kids even.

You have to look at the overall picture and realistically ask if there is anything at all Nintendo can do with a system to come out on top or make a platform that is inviting to third parties? I just don't see it without third parties taking an incredibly risky chance of jumping head first into a Nintendo console with an exclusive game designed exclusive for the console and eating all the development costs and marketing since Nintendo don't play ball like the other two. All the while looking at their past ROI on Nintendo platforms. How enticing of a situation does that look to a third party, with the added benefit of going up against Nintendo games. This is the scenario that most fans in this thread are saying third parties need to do to be successful on a Nintendo console. Or they can just go make games for mobile/Sony/Xbox/PC.

I still feel Nintendo already realizes this is a fruitless endeavor. Now if they realize they are the ones that painted themselves in the corner I don't know but their comments about not competing and doing what they do just ring to me like they realize the situation they are in. More and more I feel they are just going to have to adapt to be a first/second party only console. I think it's possible, I think they have been doing it already for a couple generations now. Can they survive as one? I think out of the big three they are the only ones that could. To me they make the most sense as a secondary console in any household with a Xbox/PS4/PC as a primary.

 

[Hiltz]

Ouch. I wonder what Nintendo's higher-ups think at this point, Ubisoft was pretty much their last big Wii U supporter and Nintendo seems to be trying to get more mature titles on their system like Devil's Third and Bayonetta on their box.

Early this year, Iwata commented on the third party situation, basically pointing out what we all know:

Software publishers that develop content that has great affinity with audiences that Nintendo has historically been strong with, namely children and families, are still very active supporters of Wii U, and their enthusiasm for Wii U can also been seen from the fact that they have even reached out to us to help people upgrade from Wii to Wii U.

Software publishers are not necessarily keen on making games in genres that have weaker affinity with audiences that Nintendo has not been as strong with, where making a huge investment does not guarantee a sufficient return.

With regard to Wii U, we first need to create a strong foundation in areas Nintendo excels at and achieve a sufficient sales volume. If we manage to do so, those publishers in the overseas markets who are currently not interested in Wii U will be attracted to the Wii U platform, as they were to Nintendo 3DS. This is going to be our approach in the near future.

Reggie is aware of all of this too.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

You think PS3/360 were targeted at hardcore gamers?

You think PS4/Bone is?
That 12-35 male audience is not the same as "core" or "hardcore" gamers.

I said core audience. Yes, they certainly are after them, way more than Nintendo.

All sorts of franchises are dumbed down and went the action route to appeal to a much broader audience. Look at Hitman, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil. Just look at Uncharted series. That's hardcore or even "core" to you with its simplistic "platforming"? Or look at AssCreed.

Doesn't make them not core games. Your revisionism is flawed.

Difference is: Nintendo targets everyone, even people, who aren't gamers at that moment. Which is intelligent and makes sense. Look at gender statistics for example. Wii had way more female gamers than PS3+360 combined.

That's why Wii earlier core audience who bought Madden 07, Call of Duty 3 and Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition left out. They saw Nintendo wasn't prioritizing core titles anymore and third-parties were restricting it with casual and family stuff, so they gone to PS3/360 instead. There was a reason for Wii's core titles to take a cut from 2008 onward.

 

[Opiate]

I'm talking about demographics, too. Like I said, SNES had a big array of different genres. Let's take a look:

Platforms: Mario, Megaman, DK, Super Metroid, Kirby, Super Castlevania, Metal Warriors, Blackthorne, Adventure Island, Joe & Mac, Earthworm Jim
Racing: Top Gear, Lamborghini, Rock N Roll Racing, Super Mario Kart, F-Zero, Super Off Road, Street Racing, Uniracers
Shooters: Gradius, Contra, R-Type, Star Fox, Doom, Parodius, Axelay, UN Squadron, Super Star Wars, Sunset Riders, Smash TV, Aero Fighters
RPGs: Final Fantasy, Chrono Trigger, Dragon Quest, Earthbound, Secret of Mana, Breath of Fire, Terranigma, Zelda, Illusion of Gaia
Simulators: SimCity, Harvest Moon, Pilotwings
Puzzles: Tetris Attack, Bust-A-Move, Kirby's Avalanche, Bomberman
Fighting: Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, World Heroes, Samurai Shodown, Fatal Fury
Beat em Ups: Final Fight, TMNT, Ninja Warriors, King of Dragons, Double Dragon, Battletoads
Strategy: Fire Emblem, Ogre Battle, Actraiser, Bahamut Lagoon, Lemmings, New Horizons
Sports: International Superstar Soccer, NBA Jam, NBA Live, Madden, FIFA, Super Punch Out, Tecmo Super Bowl, Super Tennis

This is narrow to you? Wii would dream to have such huge array of different genres.

Absolutely. Almost all of those games are aimed squarely at young males. I think the puzzle genre would be the clearest exception, but of course, that's like pointing to RE4, The Conduit, and Madworld on Wii and saying "see? The Wii appealed to these audiences."

 

[Shmuely Bully]

I don't think getting rid of Iwata & co and working on stronger hardware with an standard controller will make any difference.
For better or worse the whole industry sees Nintendo as the redhead stepchild. I don't see third parties suddenly giving it the same support Sony and Microsoft receive even if they had the strongest hardware. It would help yes, but not to turn things around.

People always say this and yet they never have any evidence to back it up despite historical evidence to the contrary. We know that devs had to go to great strides to cut things down to actually run on the Wii and we know that devs have to cope with an entirely different, again much weaker architecture on the Wii U.

Perhaps if the hardware was even remotely comparable in architecture or performance to Nintendo's current-gen competitors more people who buy the Assassin's Creeds of the gaming world would buy the system. Maybe if devs didn't have to rework things as much to run decently it wouldn't be such a PITA and more would be willing to work on ports (or even-heaven forbid-be able to ship them on time with decent performance).

Across the board from corporate philosophy to services to advertising to performance Nintendo isn't in any way, shape, or form ready to compete with the PS4 and XB1, much less their successors, but at least being in the same ballpark on performance would put them closer to being able to do that. By comparison continuing to develop gaming hardware with being able to fit it into a tiny, power-sipping form factor as one of the main goals doesn't do anything but drive the nails deeper.

 

[heidern]

Getting more games, therefore, would not be done by getting EA back on board, or getting Ubisoft to rescind their decision, or something. These companies already have their specific expertise, and trying to get them to radically change the companies' business plan is extremely difficult. A more likely solution would be to create whole new third parties that adopt business plans more like your own.

This is true, but it's not up to Nintendo to create third parties. If Nintendo create a studio it will be first party and thus will remain exclusive and focused on Nintendo platforms. Nintendo can create a userbase with their first party games but then it's up to third parties to sell to that audience. Something that third parties dropped the ball on with the Wii. If you sell shovelware to an audience and don't transmit the message that you are committed to them you are not going to create a loyal audience and instead will create a bad reputation for yourself.

In theory there's the option of working with the existing third parties as MS have done with EA and Titanfall for example, but Nintendo tried that approach with the Gamecube(Resident Evil, Tales of Symphonia, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles etc) and it failed. Chasing third parties is a waste of time and money for Nintendo. Their best option is to innovate with their first parties and look for new hits to replace Wii Sports/Wii Fit and also look to getting their portable third parties to expand towards their console.

 

[John Harker]

Condescending attitude and baited questions aside...

Wii U owners were starved for content when the original release date arrived. When the delayed release arrived, the library had begun to take root. The sales they missed out on for those 7 months of being a "must have game" would have been more than the sales they made on the other consoles when it finally arrived there. Those other platforms contributed very little to the overall results - especially at full price. There's no way you can argue that they actually gained any mindshare when you look at the actual results on those other platforms.

In the end, more people had the ability to play it, but the evidence doesn't point to them actually wanting to in very large numbers. A release with the XB1 and PS4 versions would have made far more sense for the project. What made it a 'good idea'?

Games were launching left and right on the Wii U with under 10k units. Everyone had access to this information, tracking, forecasting, etc. Retailers weren't hot on orders.

Even major titles like WoW101 is struggling to hit 80k, and that had a ton of buzz on the platform. AC was struggling to hit 50k. Games that were launching in 2013 were selling half as much as 2012. Nintendo had been/were delaying their own first party projects. The Wii U audience was given a free Rayman Challenge App on eShop, and still had more features than the other releases. Now, the game sold like 3-4X on other platforms combined than Wii alone

What would those 7 months of, going by performance and trends at the time?
You have to make the best decisions for your product given the information at hand.

 

[Juken]

You think PS3/360 were targeted at hardcore gamers? You think PS4/Bone is?
That 12-35 male audience is not the same as "core" or "hardcore" gamers.

All sorts of franchises are dumbed down and went the action route to appeal to a much broader audience. Look at Hitman, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil. Just look at Uncharted series. That's hardcore or even "core" to you with its simplistic "platforming"? Or look at AssCreed.

Difference is: Nintendo targets everyone, even people, who aren't gamers at that moment. Which is intelligent and makes sense. Look at gender statistics for example. Wii had way more female gamers than PS3+360 combined.

It's only intelligent and makes sense if it's successful.

Targeting a narrower audience profitably is smarter than targeting everyone and losing money.

 

[adamantypants]

Wii U would have absolutely benefited from more power; comparable at least to PS4/XB1. When specs became known, I completely lost interest.

Less anecdotally, look at how hard it is to keep games exclusive on the Sony/MS consoles. Publishers want to release everything on everything available for as long as possible. The fact that Nintendo keeps making hardware not in the same league as the other consoles makes them far less appealing to port to.

I don't think the conversation should even be about Nintendo trying to work with third parties to lure them to develop for the console. If the console were easy to port to they wouldn't have had this much trouble getting third parties on there to begin with.

 

[Willy Wanka]

I'm only really bothered about there being no ZombiU 2. I can buy everything else on PC or other consoles that I own.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Absolutely. Almost all of those games are aimed squarely at young males.

Which is the absolute majority portion of the console market. Always was. And they have a bigger reach of different genres to play and aren't restricted to a few, selected genres like the casual/family is, thus restricting the enviroment of a sytem's ecosystem.

I think the puzzle genre would be the clearest exception, but of course, that's like pointing to RE4, The Conduit, and Madworld on Wii and saying "see? The Wii appealed to these audiences."

Many games I listed had a major appeal for casual and families at the time. Especially in a time where hardware power and fancy graphics weren't key priorities.

 

[BGBW]

oddball controller

How is a controller with a screen any more oddball than a controller with a touchpad?

 

[cloudyy]

I like the "architecture" argument. WiiU isn't even getting 360 ports even though both have the same "architecture" and there are still a shitton of cross-games releasing on 360 but jackshit on WiiU.

 

[Shmuely Bully]

How is a controller with a screen any more oddball than a controller with a touchpad?

It's not, but it's less usable. You don't have to look away from your game to use a touchpad.

I like the "architecture" argument. WiiU isn't even getting 360 ports even though both have the same "architecture" and there are still a shitton of cross-games releasing on 360 but jackshit on WiiU.

They both have PowerPC CPU cores, but based on what I've read on Espresso here getting good performance out of it works entirely differently from how you did that on 360, so I don't know if they're as comparable as you might think.

 

[Huff]

How is a controller with a screen any more oddball than a controller with a touchpad?

Well one kinda looks like a Fisher price you

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Wii U is dead in the water and Nintendo is not going to release a succesful home console ever again , so is smart to put some distance between you and Nintendo if you are a third party publisher.

 

[sörine]

Now, the game sold like 3-4X on other platforms combined than Wii alone

I take it that's worldwide? Because the leaked NPDs were a much different story?

Vita: 20k
PS3: 30k
360: 42k
Wii U: 88k

 

[BGBW]

Well one kinda looks like a Fisher price you

What does a Fisher price BGBW look like?

 

[Fourth Storm]

Well one kinda looks like a Fisher price you

I'd rather the controller look Fisher Price and have some durability to it.

It's not, but it's less usable. You don't have to look away from your game to use a touchpad.

I personally find the DS4's touch pad pretty uninspiring. Very few Wii U games require looking away from the TV screen. The one game I can think of (Zombi U) builds the concept into the actual gameplay.

The Gamepad is fine. It's only problem is price. And battery life.

 

[boyshine]

Wii U could've made Rogue worth playing. I never expected to enjoy Black Flag as much as I did on Wii U. By far my favourite game in the series.

 

[emb]

I hate that Zombi U bombed.

But I don't really care for Watch Dogs and Assassin's Creed, especially compared to stuff like Nintendo games or Rayman. So I guess I'm part of the problem Ubi has with the system's userbase.

 

[BumblebeeCody]

Ubisoft, yer games are shite anyway.

 

[Zombie James]

Difference is: Nintendo targets everyone, even people, who aren't gamers at that moment. Which is intelligent and makes sense.

This isn't true at all. Nintendo's target has almost always been the family-friendly audience, taken to the extreme with the Wii last generation. Yes, you can look at things and say "everyone" can enjoy something like Donkey Kong Country - like you can say "everyone" can enjoy a G-rated movie - but don't lie to yourself into thinking a game like that targets the Assassin's Creed or Watch Dogs crowd. Nintendo's focus is so frustratingly narrow, imho, and it shows in almost everything they do; from friend codes to Miiverse censorship to marketing.

 

[captmcblack]

I would be surprised if even EA took the Mass Effect situation as evidence of Wii U's market viability one way or another. But one can look at timely releases such as Batman: Arkham Origins, CoD: Ghosts, Call of Duty: BLOPS2, ACIII, and ACIV - the lack of sales for these games tell a story which is hard to ignore.

But those games were released with less features/functionality/DLC than their counterparts on other systems, and were generally priced exactly the same. I think WB was kind and allowed their games to release with partial functionality/support for $10 less, but still...why should people provide 65% of a product for 100% of the price, and be surprised if they sell poorly? Why should they expect that the product sell similarly to products that release in ecosystems 5 to 8 times larger (which were established for 6 or more years at time of release), if they aren't even spending the same money/time/effort to release, market and provide sustained support for it?

I never get that.
How can you expect the latest Calladooty to be released for $60 with half the DLC (if any), limited patch updates (if any), and then sell 3 million copies just like the 360 or PS3 versions?

Really, the problem is shared between the third parties who don't really have an investment in making the best effort for their best products to success the most, and Nintendo who unfortunately designed a machine that doesn't make it as easy as possible for those third parties to produce products that can do that.

 

[Huff]

What does a Fisher price BGBW look like?

I can't do everything for you. Use that imagination

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Well, it's just one big negative feedback loop, isn't it?

Ubisoft makes mediocre port of game -> Core fans don't buy it because "it's a mediocre port" -> Ubisoft uses this as proof there is no core interest in Wii U -> Ubisoft invests fewer resources into developing future ports to keep costs down -> Ubisoft makes mediocre port of game...at lower frequencies than before

Part of the blame lies with Ubisoft but there's an undeniable, inherent weakness in the Wii U software ecosystem that prioritises Nintendo 1st-party and little else. I don't have faith that...even if they were great ports...they would sell comfortably for Ubisoft. The sales situation just isn't at that level. When you have to worry whether or not the revenue from the port will make back the budget invested into it, that's when it starts being a waste of time to port things over.

This weakness has plagued the console right since launch...it spooked away the likes of EA and Take-Two very quickly, and now it's finally reaching Ubisoft as well.

Great post. This is, IMO, the biggest problem Nintendo have: their userbase. It's very toxic for third-parties, as they can't sell titles and for Nintendo itself, as it leaves them isolated and the only responsible to carry on their platforms, which is impossible.

They need to expand their audience and target new demographics quickly. Otherwise, if they choose to remain hostage to this toxic and alienated audience, they might have to stop making home consoles, or even portables.

 

[BuzzJive]

Games were launching left and right on the Wii U with under 10k units. Everyone had access to this information, tracking, forecasting, etc. Retailers weren't hot on orders.

Even major titles like WoW101 is struggling to hit 80k, and that had a ton of buzz on the platform. AC was struggling to hit 50k. Games that were launching in 2013 were selling half as much as 2012. Nintendo had been/were delaying their own first party projects. The Wii U audience was given a free Rayman Challenge App on eShop, and still had more features than the other releases. Now, the game sold like 3-4X on other platforms combined than Wii alone

What would those 7 months of, going by performance and trends at the time?
You have to make the best decisions for your product given the information at hand.

How much at full price vs. discounted. What's the digital distribution? Show me the receipts.

All the stuff you cite was after the fact. February 2013 was before any of that data came in, and before those trends really began. Lego and Monster Hunter came out around that time and both put up decent numbers - better than the other platforms had at Rayman launch.

Of course Ubi wanted there to be a bigger audience, but it didn't help - hence the "bad idea". Big fish, small pond.

 

[cloudyy]

They need to expand their audience and target new demographics quickly.

Are you talking about Nintendo or third parties?

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Are you talking about Nintendo or third parties?

Nintendo