I might be the only one with eyes who has pointed this out, but both Assassin's Creed 3 and 4 were M rated games that had research in the Gamepad with money put into that, and they WERE released on day one. Watch Dogs was also an M rated game with little to no research put into it (since Ubisoft already knew the capability of the Gampad) and, it was released 6 MONTHS after the rest of the versions came out. 

Yes, most people already know this, in fact, I bet every single person reading this knows that, but is ANYBODY actually seeing the reason for those precious 6 months of delay. Let's take a little ride down exposed road shall we.

Now, remember when Ubisoft said that mature games just don't sell on the Wii U, and all we like is Just Dance. Me too (and I have never bought a Just Dance game ever, Ubisoft...) I think Watch Dogs Wii U was the only way to make flase proof to their statement. So as this game sells worse than almost any game ever on day one, Ubisoft is gonna say "Yup, didn't sell, no more mature content." But, I bet my life savings if you asked why they would just say Wii U consumers are just not the right demographic. This brings up the question, why did they create this game at all?

The real reason to me (and I seriously just guarentee I am right) is because they needed to back up their source of "mature games don't sell on Wii U." Their excuse, little sales. How do they get a game to sell little. They know how, get the most overhyped game of the year that everybody bought on day one, release it 6 months later, no DLC, not advertised at all, and you have a nasty recipe of terrible launch. 

I'll put it like this, Ubisoft purposely made a game they knew it just wouldn't sell, and to be honest, part of me thinks this is kind of just dumb, but then again, as uch as I hate it it is pretty brilliant how they came up with this. Also, what is even more unbelievable is that I am pretty much the only person to notice this. Ubifost specifically said no more mature games on Wii U.... AFTER Watch Dogs? they knew they did not have to make this game, at all, they'd be fine. But They did, and the reason was just to prove a stupid and false point.... wow Ubisoft, you just sunk to a new low, a low so deep it just can't go any lower. You thought Unity was as low as Ubisoft would go? Think again, man, this is the lowest a company could EVER go. It is one thing to just not have it at all, but to make it just for credibility to their statement, that's not only low, it's kind sickening, to be honest.

I am never buying another Ubisoft game at all, which is a same, Far Cry 4 seemed worth my money, but it's not worth supporting this company anymore. I could deal with the glitch fest known as Unity, I don't play AC that much anyway. But seriously, this is not only stupifyingly dumb, but It makes me even more mad nobody notices this at all.

Also, if that is not enough, can we just all let in the fact that they released this game in the same week of Smash Bros, the most hyped Wii U title all year. I am sorry, but they could've picked any other date to publish it, even in December would've been better.

Okay, please let me know what you think, and seriously, If you spoke about this too, that'd be even more awesome. If word like mine and the point I am trying to cross ever surfaced and reached Ubisoft's notice, that'd be amazing, even if it is not my post specifically. Pleae tell me your thoughts, I want to know.

Business wise it was the best idea to release a third party game, which time and again have been proven not to sell on the WiiU, right around the holiday shopping with no competition from anyone else and a lot of parents being forced to buy a videogame for their kids.. It would have made no sense at all to have it released in May while around now it has a chance to be picked up by ingnorant parents..

I still want to someone make a investigation on this. Nothing on this turn of events make sense. I can understand that ubisoft planned in actually put effort on the version later, but them they needed workforce to complete the rest of their another games, but why not even put a trailer up? Why not even tweet about it?

If they delayed because they expected the user base to grow a litlle, so why they said they alreadly have a game ready on the back that they still didn't release? Why not release alongside the other versions? Why not cancel at all, since they alreadly said that they are more willing to do it?

I'm sorry OP, but i can't buy your explanation, the AC black flag and splinter cell games alreadly proved this point, no need to release another game to "reconfirm". There is something there that we just don't know, and ask myself what... A secret deal with nintendo? Someone inside really figthing the good fitgh till the end?

Anyway, will probably buy it for a low price, since there is not a lot of games that let you roam around in a car on WiiU.

Honestly, I had a feeling that if this didn't sell well, Ubisoft would use as another "Wii U owners don't like mature games" argument, despite all other factors involved, like the 6 month delay. If they sold it on release day with decent marketing, it could have sold decently like ZombiU which had decent marketing and to date has sold about 740,000 copies worldwide.

I think Zombi U sold that many is because it was a launch title.  I do not think Watchdogs would have come close to those sales.  Though, I'm sure it would have done better if they integrated the Gamepad like they had originally planned. Could have hit 300k if done right.

My original point still stands, if they released it around the time that it came out on other platforms, it could have sold around what Assasin's Creed 3 and 4 sold.  I know that ZombiU was a launch title, but they still marketed it, unlike other games on Wii U.  They even made Rayman Legends a multiplat because they thought that it wouldn't sell on Wii U.

Normally i would say that is too far fetched, but to be honest, i have no idea why they released Watch Dogs for Wii U as they did.

I mean, try to find it in the chartz for Nov 15, it is not between the top 75. It is even behind Sonic Doom.
And that was pretty predictable.

Î do completely agree.

I mean after..............

#1 "we cant release Rayman Legends on WiiU now even tho its finished because we want to release it on other systems too. And having a WiiU version out NOW will make the other people think its not a new game when it hits their systems later so nobody will buy it"

But then they do it with WatchDogs its okay when its happening on a Nintendo system? okaaaaay...

....

#2
You make a low budget game called ZombiU with pretty nonexistant marketing on WiiU (a single platform!) a system that launched with an installbase of exactly 0 (as every system does).
The game sells around 1m copies and yet it was NOWHERE NEAR PROFITABLE? Nowhere near to me sounds like at least 1.5m or maybe even 2m were expected.

Lets compare this to WatchDogs shall we?

WatchDogs AAA big budget title with a ton of marketing. Was extremely hyped.
Had a pretty good and costly live action commercial
A game coming to 6 systems (porting always costs money!)
With a potential userbase of

• 160m PS360 owners.
• Then roughly 15m or so PS4 and XBO consoles.
• ?m PCs and
• last but not least roughly 4m WiiU consoles.

And you just expect a AAA big budget title on 6 systems to sell 6.3m copies even tho the potential userbase is more than 150m people?
(Expected sales to me are not "barely profitable" but "pretty profitable". I mean who exepcts anything else from ones one new AAA big budget title? Btw the game ended up with roughly 10m sold as far as i know- digital included)

So 6.3m copies on 6 systems with probably 175m users = profitable roughly 1.05m per system (I know 1m on PC is controversial but still)
(remember with alot of marketing that costs alot of money and 5 ports that also cost money)

VS

1m copies on 1 single new platform with then 0 users = nowhere near profitable? and a failure?
(even tho no marketing at all etc?)

Yeah sure Ubi
---

#3
Downgrading PC versions so the current gen does not look weak in comparison.


..............Nothing will shick me anymore.

Someone at Ubisoft does not want to support the Wii U. I don't see the Wii U version selling anywhere near as well as on other consoles or look as pretty, but these games were also ported to the demonstrably weaker PS3 and XBox 360 consoles. One of those versions should have fit in the Wii U with more than enough room to debug.

I can see how the Wii U could be harder to develop for than the PS4 or X1, which use X86, or the PS360 consoles, which have been used for years now. There is no way the Wii U is anywhere near THAT hard to develop for. When you're already splitting your risk so many ways, adding one more port could probably be justified by a few thousand sales.

You forgot an important difference with AC3 and 4. First, at least 4 was held back to be released with next gen-versions and second, both versions performed worse than 360 and PS3.

There is an important distinction to be made. I dont think lazy ports have any hope on the Wii U, but i do think mature games do. Bayonetta 2 illutrated this well. Zombi U did aswell, even though Ubi expectations were through the roof.
Obviously, exclusives are the only way to do it. These games target the mature gamer. The mature gamer has the console with the best specs for multi-plats. They will only be atracted to the Wii U with titles that they cant get elsewhere with better performance. Unless, of course, Nintendo makes the most powerful system once again.