Aielyn said:
This is exactly the same sort of thinking that was applied to the Wii. And third parties completely squandered that opportunity. The fact of the matter is, developers and publishers have to make their own market on gaming platforms, the only thing that the hardware maker has to do is create the install base. And the Wii proved that the power of the console isn't what determines success. Those that leveraged the Wii properly saw incredible success, and it had nothing to do with graphics or power, but intelligent and effective use of the hardware in a way that wasn't just a gimmick. Because I already get the sense of your inclination, I'm going to explain that term - "gimmick". Motion controls are not a gimmick. Touch controls are not a gimmick. Kinect is not a gimmick. A gimmick isn't a piece of hardware, it's how you utilise the hardware. If a game adds motion controls, or touch controls, because those sorts of controls are available, and it can be added to the back of the box, then it's a gimmick. If the game adds these things because it improves the game, because the game is better with it than without it, then it's not a gimmick. There are some times when a gimmick is fine - especially when a console has just released and the tech is being shown off. Nintendo Land is a gimmick. Wii Sports was a gimmick. Being a gimmick isn't necessarily a problem. But if it's not a new and different use of the hardware, then it better improve the experience, otherwise it'll be rejected. For the record, Wii U sales have been stronger than either the PS3 or 360 saw during their respective launches. But hey, why bother trying to analyse the situation and think about it, when you can just apply your fanboy bias and ignore every single argument put forward challenging your worldview? Oh, and by the way, Deep Silver didn't go bust at all, not sure where you got that from. I also don't know why you used it as demonstration of Wii support. The only Wii exclusive they made was Cursed Mountain, a forgettable game released late in the generation. They also made six other multiplatform titles for the Wii (most of which were so-called "casual" titles)... and ten titles for 360, PS3, or both, that weren't for Wii. And their upcoming titles include Emergency 2013, Dead Island: Riptide, Sacred 3, Sacred Citadel, and X Rebirth. So really, I don't know why you bothered to even mention them. As for Eurocom? They had great results with Goldeneye 007 Wii, which sold almost twice as many copies as the 360 and PS3 versions (Goldeneye 007: Reloaded) combined. And 007 Legends? Despite being on a console with an install base just over 1 million, it's selling nearly as well as the PS3 and 360 versions, already (keeping in mind the difference in release date). The only big flop from Eurocom for the Wii in this respect was Dead Space: Extraction - a spinoff title that was widely criticised for being more concerned with telling a story than being a game, amongst other things. And what was their last game? Harry Potter for Kinect. And I never said that the Wii guarantees that a company will do well. It still takes, you know, EFFORT. |
So you are saying Cursed Mountain was a bad game?
Have you actually taken the time to look at games sales on the Wii? Other then Nintendo and bundled titles, sales are incredibly low even when you don't consider the market share the Wii has. If you do, then you should notice that other then one or two games, the Wii has had the worst game sales this generation.
You really don't understand the wii....The Wii was seen as a gimmick by a lot of gamers, but seen as the "in thing" by a lot of non-gamers. If you want to play a lot of the popular franchises this generation, you couldn't play it on the wii, hence the reason that there is no point in putting those franchises on the Wii U as the people who want to play them will already own either a 360 or PS3.
The wii u launch may be adequate but nevertheless, it's no way near reaching the market that is the PS3 or 360.
You are the one who isn't rationally thinking about this but rather just raging at devs "not thinking". And I'm not a "fanboy" - i'm a PC gamer so I'm actually the unbiased one here. But y'know, blame everyone before looking in the mirror.
So let me repeat myself:
If you are developing a game that will go on the 360 and PS3, which are significantly larger markets then the Wii U, whilst being sure that most Wii U owners will own either a PS3 or 360, why develop for the Wii U? More to the point, why develop for the Wii U this close to the end of a gaming generation when you could be focusing on the next gen?
Also look at it this way. Are you saying that almost every big publisher and devloper out there all have it wrong and that you, someone who doesn't work in the industry, has got it magically right? Did you make the tinfoil hat yourself or buy it from a Doomsday prepper?
FYI: http://www.edge-online.com/news/deep-silver-vienna-closed/
