It Continues... Take Two "skeptical" about Wii U

[SaviorX]

fauzman said:

SaviorX said:

fauzman said:
I think clearly most of the major devs are adopting a "wait and see" approach.<snip>

Yet despite this theory, devs will still support the Playstation Vita in spite of poor hardware (and software) sales.

You are correct but it depends on the perception at the launch. People thought that the PSP would do very well, in fact beat the DS, and thats why there was a lot of support for it (initially at least). Add to that, at the time Sony were at the top of their game - the ps2 was selling tonnes and they were bringing a more advanced handheld to the market. People DONT think (at least at the moment) that the Wii U will do well and this lack of confidence means lack of support. Add to that the performance of the last "hardcore" nintendo console (which didnt sell huge) and the wii (which sold lots but didnt see a lot of 3rd party software sales) and its not hard to see why some developers might have doubts.

The best way to get the big multi-plats right now for nintendo would be to spend some cash and get ports of upcoming games to come out at the same time on the Wii U AND do exclusive DLCs (like MS).  

It would probably serve me better if I respond to you in parts:

The Wii was the 'market' leader for the generation with the most consoles sold and was Nintendo's highest-selling console that they ever made. There was skepticism for the Wii's launch as well, with some analysts predicting it would peter out below 40m consoles sold. Perception for the Wii U is no different, if not worse, despite the fact that is a successor to a market leader. Rereading your post, the first 3 or so lines could just well apply to Nintendo now.

The trends of 1995 should not take precedence in this case over which software should be created for the new console. The biggest issue I'm having right now is that you think it did not see a lot of 3rd party sales. The Wii had great-selling 3rd party sales, but not in genres like shooters/action adventures/FPS...but that is because none were made outside of Call of Duty and the ambitious 'The Conduit'. If I have said it once on this website, I have said it a thousand times; you cannot sell videogames that do not exist.

I just do not know what there is to doubt when it comes to Wii U...

Ubisoft hit the gold mine with Just Dance as a series on Wii, which I believe has sold like 7+9+9= 25 million copies. Rabbids were consistent too, so at least Ubi of all people has their act together....

Sega had their biggest selling game ever with Sonic at the Olympic Games? All the other Sonic titles either  surpassed 1m or got really close.

Square Enix made nothing of note outside of Dragon Quest. A Kingdom Hearts 1+2 & Chain of Memories Collection would have been wise...

Capcom...they went very quirky due to hardware 'limitations'. Their efforts were the true definition of hit or miss. However, 'core' games of 'quality' like RE4 & MH3 hit 2m+. Their on-rails test games also averaged 1m.

Activision had COD consistently hit 1m, and that was with wack online and poor graphics...with Wii Ultra being of AT LEAST equal parity, there is absolutely no conscionable excuse why a Call of Duty game should not be on there. Therefore, if the largest third party series of the entire generation can still find te time to be created on the Wii U, all the other companies bleeding red ink have no excuse.

Ask THQ. Look at what their idiocy got them:

"THQ claims that they have not had a fiscal year where they finished in the black in "the last five fiscal years" and that they have had to restructure their operations to meet those losses. They are also in danger of losing their listing on the Nasdaq because their stock has placed below the required $1 per share minimum for more than 30 days in a fiscal year and could be removed if they can't keep the stock price above $1 for more than 10 consecutive business days by July 23. The icing on this tragic cake is its cash flow problem. Not only do they have a problem finding additional capital to fund their operations, but they also "may not be able to refinance or generate sufficient cash to service and/pay our convertible senior notes."