metalslimer
Member
Zombie u didn't sell well by any metric.
-
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
Zombie u didn't sell well by any metric.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
I bought AC III for Wii U but it wasn't very good so I didn't buy ACIV. I wonder if I'm part of the problem.
I'm debating actually trying to write in to Ubisoft (or one of it's branches) explaining WHY I've not bothered purchasing their games, despite wanting to; being treated like an inferior product consumer with gimped ports, cut content, and delays. Anyone have any experience or advice on this?
They pretty much said it didn't come close to making a profit on its modest budget. ..soooo.
playingwithfire
Member
Fuck Watch Dogs and Ass Creed. I want ZombiU 2
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
What do you think is there reason there is SO much misinformation about Zombi U out there?
Sales or criticism?
Poimandres
Member
Nah man, didn't you hear? Ubi treats Nintendo fans like "second class citizens".
Never mind the fact that the first few Ass Creed games ran like busted ass on PS3 but still sold well. Or the issues Ubi have had with PC ports for a while. They definitely asked for these low Wii U sales.
shanafan
Member
Some do. I personally have both Assassin's Creeds for Wii U, as well as Mass Effect 3, NFS Most Wanted U, etc.
I love supporting Nintendo however I can
Those ps3 and PC ports got every piece of content and post release support equivalent to more successful versions. That isn't the case here. You never once expected the ps3 version of a game not to get the same post gold content as the 360 version.
Poimandres
Member
Yeah, that's a fair point. I guess I just don't give a damn about DLC generally.
Post gold content includes patching too, though, nowadays. And you'd better believe that if the ps3 version of a game was missing entire modes in comparison to the 360 version, or if it released half a year later, there would be an uproar and it would most certainly sell less as a result, even (heck, especially) with the intended demographics in play.
metalslimer
Member
Was it known that the WIi U wouldn't get the post release content at launch because it sold like shit from the very beginning?
Obviously most of these kinds of decisions are made long before numbers roll in (because they have to be started and planned in advance), but you'd have to speak to the pubs or developers to narrow that kinda stuff down and figure what decisions are made when.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Both. Eveything really.
I'm of the camp reviewers simply did not understand the title at launch and it was undervalued, but even to this day people confidently discuss it incorrect terms of it's genre, how it's generally received by consumers (which is actually very high), it's budget, it'd actual sales (many still say it sold well or "very well"), it's cancelled sequel, it's cancelled multi platform spinoff, Nintendo not liking it, Nintendo funding it, etc etc...
Poor game. Seems like it's mostly used to justify individual arguments on all sides for some reason.
metalslimer
Member
What I meant was that did consumers know Assassin's Creed wasn't going to get the content because it seems strange to blame the poor sales of the game on it if they didn't?
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/10/10/assassins-creed-4-dlc-not-coming-to-wii-u-version/
Edit: It seems it was. I had just typed up a big response here, but it got deleted. The main point was that it seems like this is a symptom more than a cause of the 3rd party sales problems.Assassin's Creed 3 sales were terrible so they didn't bother. Of course that game came out weeks later than the PS3/360 version, but that was when the Wii U launched so there was not much they could do.
Poimandres
Member
That's a fair point, and they definitely dropped the ball on support. I can see this as the kind of decision that comes from the top as opposed to the team working on the game.
But with performance issues, I'm reminded of the ridiculous "lazy developers" argument that people used to go on about when PS3 ports were a little rough. I feel like the development team for AC4 and Splinter Cell on Wii U put a good amount of effort into their ports. Sure, the teams were probably pretty small and under supported by Ubi as a whole, but these are hardly "shocking ports" like some people seem to suggest.
Honestly I think it was a perfect storm of problems for them. Many reviews completely misjudged what the game's intentions were, being a survival horror with deliberately clunky combat because the characters weren't soldiers. Compound that with the other poor ports at launch and it created terrible word of mouth toward pretty much everything 3rd party on Wii U. Then Wii U support dropped off the face of the earth by GDC and buried the console, failing to build a base of new supporters to potentially give the game another shot.
It was just greatly unfortunate for the game because it was probably the best 3rd party launch game available.
AC4 was a really solid port. IMO the problem was that AC4 was also greatly discounted during Black Friday for every console but Wii U at the time. Those who didn't wait for PS4/XbOne just bought the cheaper version. I was told by Amazon that the sale was mandated by Ubisoft so I'm assuming AC4's sales at the time didn't do well because of that decision.
metalslimer
Member
While this is only some anecdotal evidence
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BMFIXEW/?tag=neogaf0e-20
The reviews on Amazon seem pretty positive towards the game. There are a few mentions of the port quality, but the overall ranking is very good. I have to wonder if once again some people are applying there own high standard of quality as a pretty hardcore enthusiast to the general market. For most of these Wii U games that were considered bad ports, do people really think the general public buying these games cared? If the argument is that the port wasn't good enough to justify people getting it on the Wii U over other systems than that's another argument, but if you want to go down that road, than once again, why should 3rd party developers make games for Wii U when the owners who would buy 3rd party games own other systems anyway?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BMFIXEW/?tag=neogaf0e-20
The reviews on Amazon seem pretty positive towards the game. There are a few mentions of the port quality, but the overall ranking is very good. I have to wonder if once again some people are applying there own high standard of quality as a pretty hardcore enthusiast to the general market. For most of these Wii U games that were considered bad ports, do people really think the general public buying these games cared? If the argument is that the port wasn't good enough to justify people getting it on the Wii U over other systems than that's another argument, but if you want to go down that road, than once again, why should 3rd party developers make games for Wii U when the owners who would buy 3rd party games own other systems anyway?
You mean the fact that some folks still insist on saying it's a first person shooter? That a lot of people only read the Gamespot review (first review) and never gave it a fair chance?
Whatever the reason was for ZombiU not performing well enough, it sucks. It's the first game (next to Nintendo Land) I bought for the system and I was so glad I took the plunge. I'm not that big on Ubisoft games (the last one I really enjoyed was the PoP tFS Wii version) but this game is worth it.
These are all games targeted at the traditional audience.
They played it safe in comparison to NES and PSX which were consoles targeting new audiences. PS3/360 had an established audience so of course publishers would play it safe.
If the need was for more simplified control schemes then that would mean the Wii control schemes were too complex for them. If the Wii control schemes were too complex for them then word of mouth for the Wii would have been negative and they also wouldn't have bought any further games. In fact they probably would have just returned the console or sold it. Clearly that didn't happen. In 2009 Wii Sports Resort and NSMB Wii were released and went on to sell 60M units between them. So clearly the audience had been retained until that point and was still active.
The audience liked the Wii, they liked Wii Sports, they were successfully able to enjoy games making use of the interface. But they didn't get enough games making use if that interface that were relevent to them and of a high quality. Nintendo published games were too narrow to maintain the more diverse audience. They bought those third party games, but again they were not high quality or they were not relevent to them being versions/spinoffs of games originally targeted at the traditional audience. So interest dissipated.
Cost may have been an issue and of course Nintendo increased costs with the Wii U. But in that case they wouldn't switch to playing games on their mobile, they'll carry on playing the games they already own for the Wii. In which case if they encounter a relevent console at an attractive price they'll consider buying it.
shinra-bansho
Member
Things like Game Party and Deca Sports were million sellers from memory. A fitness genre peaked and ebbed. Whether an NFC toy based platformer collecting game is considered a traditional game is somewhat questionable. An audience was established and they capitalised on that audience. Creating new franchises is not creating new audience segments. They did the same on the PSX. They did the same prior. They are third parties.
Motion controls don't need to be too complex for other avenues to provide superior consumer value with regard to that dimension. Something doesn't need to be bad for something to be better. In 2009 the iPad didn't exist in the marketplace.
The consumer market does not stand still. Over time the offering and consumer needs will drift. I don't know on what basis you or anyone assumes that the Wii could maintain interest indefinitely against the march of mobile and the advent of tablets providing better value for that userbase. Third parties sinking tens or hundreds of millions into "risky" software to try and prop that shifting interest up is not only an exercise outside of their scope as third parties, it's an exercise in futility.
Motion controls don't need to be too complex for other avenues to provide superior consumer value with regard to that dimension. Something doesn't need to be bad for something to be better. In 2009 the iPad didn't exist in the marketplace.
The consumer market does not stand still. Over time the offering and consumer needs will drift. I don't know on what basis you or anyone assumes that the Wii could maintain interest indefinitely against the march of mobile and the advent of tablets providing better value for that userbase. Third parties sinking tens or hundreds of millions into "risky" software to try and prop that shifting interest up is not only an exercise outside of their scope as third parties, it's an exercise in futility.
SwiftDeath
Member
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...*****_Does_And_Doesnt_Do_For_The_Game_Biz.php
Chartz is basically a bunch of sales-agers-esque people getting together and saying "you know what? I think that game probably sold around 120k units in Europe during its first week."
Megalosaro
Banned
My dad did.
Aquamarine
Member
Actually, it probably sold 290K units in Europe. Let's just say we undertracked it by 170K units, huh? Silly us!
Yagami_Sama
Member
I think that this kind of declaration should be avoided.
Particularly, I don't see Zombi U as a failure, the game sold about 700k world wide. How much they expect to sell ? 3 Million ?
I bought both AC, for Wii U, AC III, I pre-ordered it in the same day I bought the console, I got disappointed with the game and AC IV, I wait for a
promotion.
And why they don't talk about Rayman Legends, the Wii U version , sold a little bit less than the PS3 version.
One kind of data that I wanted to know is, how many people posses a Wii U and other console,and people that just have a Wii U, the last I believe that
should be the minority, and this minority is the public in which AC, Call Of Duty and other Multi platform are aiming. Hence I do not believe that if a person
have a Wii U and another console, that they will opt for the Wii U version.
I really don't know why they will released watch dogs for Wii U, hence everyone that wanted to play de game already bought. And by the time the
game got released, if this really happen, it will be costing U$ 15,00 for other consoles, and Watch Dogs : No DLC edition for Wii U will be costing U$60,00.
The game will sell 200k, and they will complain about.
I mean, if for example. 1 million has only the Wii U, and a game sold 200k, it is not bad.
Particularly, I don't see Zombi U as a failure, the game sold about 700k world wide. How much they expect to sell ? 3 Million ?
I bought both AC, for Wii U, AC III, I pre-ordered it in the same day I bought the console, I got disappointed with the game and AC IV, I wait for a
promotion.
And why they don't talk about Rayman Legends, the Wii U version , sold a little bit less than the PS3 version.
One kind of data that I wanted to know is, how many people posses a Wii U and other console,and people that just have a Wii U, the last I believe that
should be the minority, and this minority is the public in which AC, Call Of Duty and other Multi platform are aiming. Hence I do not believe that if a person
have a Wii U and another console, that they will opt for the Wii U version.
I really don't know why they will released watch dogs for Wii U, hence everyone that wanted to play de game already bought. And by the time the
game got released, if this really happen, it will be costing U$ 15,00 for other consoles, and Watch Dogs : No DLC edition for Wii U will be costing U$60,00.
The game will sell 200k, and they will complain about.
I mean, if for example. 1 million has only the Wii U, and a game sold 200k, it is not bad.
Are you serious? Did you not know that Tomb Raider, Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid happened? Or Wipeout, Driver, Tony Hawk and Parappa?
Wii Sports convinced 10s of millions, maybe over 50 million people to get a Wii. Wii Fit sold to over 20M. You don't need to be a market analyst to see that releasing games in the party and fitness genre would sell to those audiences. Game Party, Deca Sports, EA Sports Active etc prove the opposite to what you are saying. The audience was already proven to be there. If these games were high quality, they would have sold 5 or 10 million or more. But the quality was not high, Game Party sold 2M and a year later Game Party 2 was down to 1M. This is 2007/2008 well before the iPad ever existed.
Wii consumers, first and foremost are human beings. And like other human beings they have have a capacity for a variety of emotions and interests. What those interests are, you have to figure out through experimentation. PSX targeted males older than the traditional Nintendo audience, they started with games like Tekken, Capcom thought a horror game might be attractive to a portion of that audience and they made Resident Evil, Konami tried a military angle with MGS, Square thought dramatic cinematics might resonate, a bunch of companies tried sports games, Eidos thought Lara Croft might appeal, Sony themselves thought lots of real cars might be attractive. Alongside these were a host of other new IPs or the best and latest version(not spinoff) of existing IPs taken in a new direction, some successful some failures. End result being the customers received strong marketing messages, had a variety of their interests met and thus a substantial investment in the platform leading to sustainable success.
Contrast that with the Wii and there was only 1 third party game that was a major success(Just Dance) with Nintendo only having Wii Sports, Wii Fit and perhaps Wii Party as new IPs being successful. Maybe you could add Links Crossbow Training and Wii Play to that(although Wii Play came with a Wiimote). The rest of the successes being existing franchises that were initially envisioned for a different audience. For a new consumer base of 80M that is pathetic. The NES userbase of 60M got hundreds of new games targeted to it as did the PSX audience. Even if Nintendo hadn't made big mistakes in regards to branding, pricing and game shortages etc they would have had an uphill battle with the Wii U, and it's not because of mobile, it's because of their own shortcomings and the lack of vision from third parties(although you could argue it was inevitable because the successful third parties wouldn't want to compromise their success on Sony/MS and the smaller third parties were simply proving once again why they are smaller third parties).
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't know why you keep listing Tomb Raider and Metal Gear as if it somehow contradicts that the modus operandi of third parties is to exploit audiences fostered by the platform holder's product positioning. The audience was shown and they made games for them. And they sold.
You make a grand and unsubstantiated assumption that if the games were "quality" again by your own subjective standards that these genres and franchises targeting the audience would not have seen decline and would have sold considerably more to begin with, and further that the Wii would not have seen waning interest. JRPGs, fitness games and the music game genre were clearly also immutably appealing if they hadn't simply lost all modicum of quality. We should all still be dancing to disco as well.
Yes, Wii consumers were humans among other fatuous statements. They're humans of a very different demographic audience with different psychographic attitudes and behaviours. And you continue to superimpose the needs and value drivers of one audience onto that of another. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and the collective third party industry have been outmanoeuvred and outcompeted and those needs have been better met elsewhere.
You make a grand and unsubstantiated assumption that if the games were "quality" again by your own subjective standards that these genres and franchises targeting the audience would not have seen decline and would have sold considerably more to begin with, and further that the Wii would not have seen waning interest. JRPGs, fitness games and the music game genre were clearly also immutably appealing if they hadn't simply lost all modicum of quality. We should all still be dancing to disco as well.
Yes, Wii consumers were humans among other fatuous statements. They're humans of a very different demographic audience with different psychographic attitudes and behaviours. And you continue to superimpose the needs and value drivers of one audience onto that of another. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and the collective third party industry have been outmanoeuvred and outcompeted and those needs have been better met elsewhere.
metalslimer
Member
The chartzzzz strike back.
it will haunt us forever
Aquamarine
Member
Dude...we JUST talked about this a couple of posts ago.
Exploratory
Banned
Lolol serious post?
This is incorrect. The audience shown on the PSX was arcade gamers that likes Tekken and Ridge Racer. Tomb Raider, MGS and Final Fantasy expanded that audience to people that liked deeper experiences. DDR and Parappa expanded it to a more mainstream audience. This modus operandi of third parties is not just to exploit audiences, but also to sustain and grow them. They don't just follow audiences tastes, they lead them as well.
Not quality by my subjective standards. Quality by the subjective standards of the target audience. Low quality by their standards leads to low word of mouth and low sustained interest. Low quality by the subjective standards of the media would also hinder popularity.
You're getting it now. The Wii consumers were a very different demographic audience with different psychographic attitudes and behaviours so they needed a very different game library to that of other demographics. They didn't get it. They got the trojan horses relevent to them(Wii Sports/Wii Fit) and they probably ended up also playing Mario Kart and/or Mario Bros which weren't that relevent to them. 5% played just dance. Then the rest of the library which failed to make an impact with none of the other 3rd party games managing to achieve over 2% of the audience. There's nothing be it sales at the time, reviews or sales since then that suggest that the audience found the games to be of high quality. On the contrary, everything points to them finding them nothing special. Hardly a surprise when proven developers of quality games did not make Wii games.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't really know how "arcade gamers" is a particularly meaningful market segmentation in this context. Or how Sony apparently cultivated an audience of "arcade gamers" and then Square magically created a new audience on the PSX platform for JRPGs specifically and MGS for character action games. The titles do not necessarily sell to the same person, but they sell to the same demographic segments. You're conflating genres and franchises again with relevant consumer market segmentation.
I'm not sure how you're assessing whether the actual audience found the products third parties made as quality products, as compelling products, as products that met their needs at the time. Beyond simply saying they didn't. At the simplest level they clearly did because those consumers bought them in their hundreds of millions of units.
Again we're running in circles because you're assuming the purchase behaviours, purchase drivers and needs of those consumers match that of the traditional userbase, the demographic audience for games like Tomb Raider on the 360 or PS3, cultivated by those respective platform holders. There's evidence in what sold to those consumers then, where those consumer segments are gaming now, if they're still gaming, of what those needs were, and nothing there suggests that it was deeper, more complex experiences or that they migrated because they found the output from third parties to be artistically meritless.
They are third parties, if they wanted the role and responsibility for cultivating and maintaining an audience group on a platform indefinitely they'd make their own platform.
I'm not sure how you're assessing whether the actual audience found the products third parties made as quality products, as compelling products, as products that met their needs at the time. Beyond simply saying they didn't. At the simplest level they clearly did because those consumers bought them in their hundreds of millions of units.
Again we're running in circles because you're assuming the purchase behaviours, purchase drivers and needs of those consumers match that of the traditional userbase, the demographic audience for games like Tomb Raider on the 360 or PS3, cultivated by those respective platform holders. There's evidence in what sold to those consumers then, where those consumer segments are gaming now, if they're still gaming, of what those needs were, and nothing there suggests that it was deeper, more complex experiences or that they migrated because they found the output from third parties to be artistically meritless.
They are third parties, if they wanted the role and responsibility for cultivating and maintaining an audience group on a platform indefinitely they'd make their own platform.
Frankenstrat
Member
Well, here's hoping Watch_Dogs can go HUD-less like AC4 can. Favorite feature on the Wii U release by far.
Face it, the audience is being better served by the ultra high quality, big budget mobile scene. The casual audience have very strict standards. Sure some people may say it's the ubiquity of the platform, cheap prices and simple, focused game play that's attracted them. No its all about production values.
Why is Sony making knack and little big planet? Their audiences are clearly young males who want to drive around and kill things, as they've cultivated it as such.
simplythebest
Banned
That game was a technical mess on the platform I can't tell you how many times that shit forze on me, more so it's sequel and it's goddamned save bug.
shinra-bansho
Member
Because they're a first party. It's their platform. It's their prerogative to choose and cultivate audiences on it be it for family-friendly platforms of murderfests like Uncharted. It's their product to position. The onus is on them to show an audience, not on their third party partners.
I am well aware of who made the ps4. But they're clearly not going to cultivate much of a family friendly audience on the box based on the overwhelming majority of the content that's on or slated for it. It's clearly a waste of money for them or anyone else to greenlight projects like LBP and knack, right?
simplythebest
Banned
AC3 was the first AC game to come out on a Nintendo console ever. On top of that, there are just a large number of factors that lead to the WiiU having one of the most awkward launches in history. Between confusion about what the console is, who it was marketed to/for, who it was even supposed to pull in, the controller confusion, you name it. So AC3, in a lot of ways, was already doomed from the start on WiiU
I think the biggest thing that just led to AC3's failure on the console though, was that it was the first AC on a nintendo console. If you're a major AC fan, then you've more than likely already had the console that you're going to play it on already. Why would you buy a 300 dollar machine on a new network infrastructure when no one else you're going to play it with is?
I think the biggest thing that just led to AC3's failure on the console though, was that it was the first AC on a nintendo console. If you're a major AC fan, then you've more than likely already had the console that you're going to play it on already. Why would you buy a 300 dollar machine on a new network infrastructure when no one else you're going to play it with is?
The_Endgamer
Member
Does this mean more Rayman?
Also, Watchdogs? Who cares at this point. there's probably a 2 people on this forum and 3 others in the world who are waiting out for it.
Way to burn bridges Ubisoft, only releasing their 'kids games' on Nintendo platforms this gen and personally can't see that changing much for the gen after, there would be no real incentive.
Also, Watchdogs? Who cares at this point. there's probably a 2 people on this forum and 3 others in the world who are waiting out for it.
Way to burn bridges Ubisoft, only releasing their 'kids games' on Nintendo platforms this gen and personally can't see that changing much for the gen after, there would be no real incentive.
shinra-bansho
Member
They clearly see a business case for it for their platform and their business. Operative words are "their platform."
Same thing with me and the Wii U Injustice. I'd Day 1 Ultimate on there despite it being a double dip. It's even worse with Mass Effect 3; it came out the same fucking day that every other console/distribution service got the entire trilogy, 3 included plus all DLC, for the same price. Livid's an understatement...
As for Ubi, I know that sales-wise, they have no reason to return, but I still hope things pull through for them on Nintendo systems; I never got Zombii U because my friends said it was bad, and Assassin's Creed lost my interest awhile ago. Watch_Dogs looks subpar (Haven't played it yet), but I don't want to see their support, or really anyone's, on the Wii U go away. But, again, I wholeheartedly understand why on the M-Rated front, even if their ports/games were okay, and, after the Rayman Legends nonsense, not delaying Watch_Dogs for the Wii U port feels like a second slap to the face.
Aquamarine
Member
Maybe if we're limiting it to strictly home consoles / the main series, but Assassin's Creed has released on a Nintendo ecosystem before:
These two games sold...average on the system. They didn't set the world on fire, but they didn't flop miserably either. Both games could have performed a lot better...and a lot worse.
But yeah, your point still stands. Assassin's Creed has such an established fanbase on systems like the 360, so there's no reason to get a version of the main game that doesn't show significant graphical improvements.
Now you're just confusing yourself. Either games sell to the existing audience or they sell to a new audience(or both). Arcade gamers are the audience that play arcade games. This initial PSX audience was not cultivated by Sony, it was cultivated by third party games like Ridge Racer, Tohshinden and Tekken. The audience was then expanded by other 3rd party games. Square transferred their SNES fanbase onto the console, EA helped get people that were into sports onto the console, Konami attracted more of the adult male demographic with MGS and a wider demographic with DDR. Sony did their bit with the likes of Gran Turismo, but overall it was a team effort of which the 3rd party games were the most important. That you downplay Square and FFVII simply betrays your ignorance in the matter.
Having invested $250 in a console the audience was willing to make the further smaller investments of buying games. Maybe they found them of a reasonable quality, but they did not find them to be of a high quality. Otherwise word of mouth would have led to major hits and there would have been greater audience retention. It wasn't simply a decline in a genre that was out of date(a la disco) but a decline in an entire market that could offer every genre under the sun.
They did match them in the sense that they bought the console and then bought a variety of games(9:1 tie ratio) over the course of its life cycle. They did not match them in that they weren't all that interested in Mario, Zelda, Smash and Mario Kart and other traditional games. They got their equivalents of Ridge Racer and Tekken in Wii Sports/Wii Fit but they didn't get their equivalents of Parappa/Gran Turismo/RE/Wipeout/MGS and the other hundreds of new franchises targeted to the new audience.
The reason third parties don't make their own platform is because they can't afford to, so instead they play their part in a first/third party ecosystem to cultivate and maintain an audience.
megabytecr
Member
Yeah, Watchdogs seems to be a bad or at least regular game from impressions. I have a Wii U and PS4 and I don´t intend to pick it up on Wii U or PS4. I am at least curious about the gamepad features, those could sway me, but I don´t have much hope.
shinra-bansho
Member
You're defining "audience" narrowly towards single games and single genres as "new audiences," the MGS audience and FF audience, the "arcade gamer". Tomb Raider was developed and designed towards the same audience as Resident Evil as Madden as Need For Speed. The self-same audience the PSX was positioned towards from the get-go, from its conception. Just as the Game Party was developed for the same market segments as Sports Active as Just Dance as Deca Sports. The audience that Nintendo proved present with their software, the audience that were targeted by the entire product design, ecosystem and marketing (NB not just advertising).
Once again, based on what exactly? And on whose dimensions of quality? Yours, apparently.
Again on what basis whatsoever are you deriving that "genre diversity" is what that consumer segment wanted. Because they've clearly migrated to mobile for the genre diversity of runners, quiz games, match three, that they couldn't get on consoles? Meanwhile, who says that consumer segment has declined out of existence, when the reality is that they've moved to platforms and software that better suits their entertainment needs.
Structural barriers of entry aren't the sole reason they don't enter hardware. They have their own business prerogatives, their own strategies, their own interests, their own competencies. They serve their business interests by creating content for platforms that other companies make, and for whom the responsibility of creating a userbase for that content is the platform holders.