By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Myth busting; 3rd party games are unprofitable on Wii U

@fatslob-:O

That's it... You keep coming to my threads trying to flamebait and provoke me. You are reported.



Around the Network
eyeofcore said:
@fatslob-:O

That's it... You keep coming to my threads trying to flamebait and provoke me. You are reported.

If that's the case then you need to read the rules LOL. 



sry dood, but u r just being delusional.



huiii said:
There is this thing called opportunity cost. Even if it's profitable you might get more money back if you invest your time and ressources into something else...

Then again you might not, its like rolling a dice.



eyeofcore said:
@fatslob-:O

That's it... You keep coming to my threads trying to flamebait and provoke me. You are reported.

Report him for what? Disagreeing with you?



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Around the Network
zippy said:
huiii said:
There is this thing called opportunity cost. Even if it's profitable you might get more money back if you invest your time and ressources into something else...

Then again you might not, its like rolling a dice.

Yes it is. If you think you might roll a high number on this table you do it and if you don't you skip it and try another one. It's not simply about beeing profitable or brakeing even, it's about where you can hit it big. People go to where the biggest jackpot is.

And i'm not trying to argue against porting here. Just trying to point at the logic of why it is or isn't donne. If you ask me i'd say port everything to every system (esspecially to the vita ;P) but that's obviously not happening .



Fusioncode said:
eyeofcore said:
@fatslob-:O

That's it... You keep coming to my threads trying to flamebait and provoke me. You are reported.

Report him for what? Disagreeing with you?


No. He comes to my threads to create havoc and then he provokes me, he did it again... He will do it again and he will keep doing that ultil he is banned and when that happens again then he will do it again and again and again ultil he gets banned again and people in this forum know that he is trolling and provoking people.



eyeofcore said:
Fusioncode said:
eyeofcore said:
@fatslob-:O

That's it... You keep coming to my threads trying to flamebait and provoke me. You are reported.

Report him for what? Disagreeing with you?


No. He comes to my threads to create havoc and then he provokes me, he did it again... He will do it again and he will keep doing that ultil he is banned and when that happens again then he will do it again and again and again ultil he gets banned again and people in this forum know that he is trolling and provoking people.


Then stop creating a bunch of threads that are so prone to havoc. Most of your OP's and posts are utterly void of any factual marrow.

You're being hyper-defensive on the forums here, it's actually rather amazing.



Kresnik said:

Why do I never save my old post about profitability of porting to Wii-U? I keep forgetting it comes up time and time again and never keep a bookmark of it.

Anyway, gist of it was using Ubisoft's $1.2m figure of porting to Wii-U (you can search an article on it if you want, I'm a little tired to now) and that breakdown you use in the OP, you need ~ 50,000 copies sold at full price for a game to be profitable when porting to Wii-U.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE.

Ubisoft's figure was an average across all their ported games. That included cheap stuff like Just Dance alongside expensive stuff like Assassin's Creed III.  Bigger the game; the more it costs to port.

Another point to consider, as Kitler mentions, is are these titles being sold at full price or not? Is the publisher having to take back a lot of unsold copies? Stuff like that needs factoring in.

Final point I'd make: is it worth it? I'm sure the majority of the ported to Wii-U games are genuinely profitable, apart from stuff like Mass Effect or Need for Speed which, at that development level, probably isn't profitable; and stuff like Splinter Cell or Amazing Spider Man which isn't profitable at any bracket.
For the remaining stuff, were the resources in porting it well spent? Could those resources have been better spent making a different games which would have sold more copies/made more profit elsewhere? In addition, I'm sure stuff like Batman: Arkham City was ported so that the upcoming Arkham Origins had a fanbase on Wii-U when that released. Not every game needs to be profitable on its own if it's part of a more long-term strategy, but is that strategy working?

It's all well and good saying that a game is profitable or not but there's a bit more to it than that, in any case.


I hope the strategy isn't working for Batman. Origins was a bloody joke compared to the launch port.

But yer I think that is what the developers are trying to do is build an audience however if they don't put in the effort it gives them a bad rep and people wll simply skip the next game. They will need to subsidise Wii U low profits via other platforms, just like they did with the HD twins when Wii you was killing it and they were making casual games (i.e. carnival games) and funneling the profits into HD developement.

Hopeully Watch Dogs will be done right as ubisoft claimed it was being worke don first with the next gen systems. If the game comes out on par i.e. same flawes, same frame rate issues (if any exist) and is critically acclaimed, then there will be no excuse for people to not to buy the game as it is a new IP and technically has no established fanbase anywhere. I think for Ubisoft this will be the last test. After that we may only see just dance games. 



 

 

Porting from PS3/360 to Wii U is not an expensive process.
Black Ops 2, AC3, and Arkham City sold 190k-210k, yet apparently profited enough for their followups to be ported as well.