By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Cobretti2 on 16 December 2012
Edit Thread
Aielyn said:
zarx said:
The Wii U isn't even close to a tenth of the addressable audience of even the PS3 and the devs already said due to how the game uses the CPU the Wii U version would show the game in an unfavorable light.

Metro 2033 sold twice as much on PC as 360, adding the PS3 may add upto (most likely less) an extra 25% more addressable market (gamers interested in this type of game that own a PS3 and not a PC or X360) the 360 version will be the best selling console version by far so 15% is probably more acurate. But the Wii U currently has an almost nonexistant market share, so the gain in addressable market would be negligable to nonexistant. I can't see how diverting the resources from the Wii U port into making the 3 versions with the largest market share better, is a bad business decision for a company that might not exist to see any potential rewards from establishing a market on an unproven platform.

The dev has since said that that wasn't true, that Metro wasn't ever actually tested on the Wii U, so they couldn't tell you whether the CPU could handle it.

The Wii U has practically nonexistant market share *now*. It launched three weeks ago, of course it doesn't. Guess what - every platform has been in exactly the same position. Did developers refuse to develop for the 360 because it had only sold a couple of million, after a few months? No, they put their games on the system. And taking risks is also known as doing business. THQ are in a hole that is deep enough that continuing to do what they've always done, and playing things safe, is pretty much a guaranteed death sentence.

I am glad if I wait long enough you write what I wanted to write haha. Saves me the effort. In particular the bold underlined part. Developers in general need to realise that part of selling hardware is their software. Without the software the hardware doesnt sell and support for sequels doesn't grow as their is no audience for it. They too are responsible for growing the gaming audience. 

 

On  a sidenote about the 3DS, what I find funny is that some audiences say Nintendo needs to sell their hardware in order to entice western 3rd parties to spport 3DS better, however Vita doesn't sell because it hasn't got enough good 3rd party games to justify a purchase.  Shouldn't it be up to Sony to sell the Vita liek it is upto Nintendo to sell the 3DS?