| kain_kusanagi said: I don't like being called a fanboy so I'm going to respond to your accusation of fanboyism. I'll have you know that I own every Nintendo console except the Wii U. That's including a Virtual Boy and every model of Gameboy, (Even the JP only Gameboy Lite), and every major and minor release and re-release of every official Zelda game. I will be buying the the Wii U as soon as a 3D Mario, full Zelda sequel, Prime style Metroid, Mario Kart and/or on-rails Star Fox comes out, and I may break down and buy one for Zelda WW HD just because I love that game so much. I love Nintendo. I collect Donkey Kong stuff. I have full size Donkey Kong arcade cabinet. I have more Nintendo games than I have Xbox or Playstation games. I send Nintendo character plush toys to my nieces and nephews. I'm a Nintendo Club member who racked up enough coins to buy the Golden Nunchuck to go with my Zelda Collector's Edition Gold WiiMote. I own some of the rarest Nintendo Game & Watch handhelds going back before even the NES had even been dreamed up. I buy every Nintendo console and handheld for Nintendo IP's and I care for them so they'll last a lifetime. I bleed Nintendo logo red. I will respond to one more thing. Of course the Wii U userbase is small because it just came out. That goes without saying. That's why I didn't say it. It's obvious. But that doesn't stop Ubisoft from seeing the reality of it being small, accounting for ZombiU sales, and deciding that it was a mistake to ever limit Rayman to just the Wii U. Now you go back and read what I wrote without assuming I'm some kind of anti-Nintendo PS360 fanboy. I'm not. I own them all and play them all, but I've been a fan of Nintendo the longest. |
If you're NOT a Sony fanboy, and you're arguing the way that you're arguing, then something is seriously strange about you. Your arguments sound exactly like the type a Sony fanboy would make.
So, since you claim to be so much into Nintendo, I'll make my points again in a slightly different way.
You said "It was the original decision to be Wii U exclusive that was bad. It should never have been a Wii U exclusive in the first place. The Wii U has the smallest userbase and it had no need for touch screen gameplay. It should have been planned as a multiplatform game from the begining. This was a correction of a bad decision."
Stop and think about that for a moment. You're saying that the fact that they planned an exclusive launch title was bad, because the system would have the smallest userbase. Yes, of course it would - It's a LAUNCH title. The game got delayed from the actual launch, but it was originally planned as a launch title. When it got pushed back, they made specific effort to keep it within the launch window - hence the crunch time in December and January to get the game finished. You also claimed that the game had no need for touch screen gameplay. Here's Ubisoft's own page about the game. Read the section "Wii U Showcase". And here's where Ubisoft explains exactly why it's a Wii U exclusive.
But beyond that, the fact is that exclusives are one of the ways that you build a fanbase on a system, irrespective of its current level of sales. If the game is good enough, the gamers will come to the platform for the game. And that's precisely what they were going to do, what some were already doing - multiple people bought the Wii U because of Rayman Legends, it was the game that sold them on the system.
When I pointed out that Ubisoft had been touting the importance of the touch controls, thereby proving them to either be stupid or liars, you responded "Who cares? The Upad features may appeal to some, but they aren't needed." First of all, you cannot make this claim without having played the game - only fanboys make such absolute claims, especially when the developers themselves say otherwise. Beyond that, I'll reemphasise that the announcement makes them either stupid or liars. Actually, it makes management stupid, because the dev team were the ones saying that touch controls were a focus of the game development, and management are the ones forcing it onto platforms without those controls.
You said "Ubisoft has a strong relationship with all the console makers. Yes Nintendo was pushing it, but only because Nintendo had little else to push." But Nintendo could have pushed ZombiU, Scribblenauts Unlimited, Ninja Gaiden 3, Batman, Darksiders II, Monster Hunter Tri Ultimate, Lego City Undercover, or Epic Mickey 2, not to mention their own titles. They were specifically pushing Rayman Legends far more than any of the other titles not being published by them. And Ubisoft had been gushing about how much Nintendo had been supporting them. Ubisoft also emphasised that they were "Nintendo's biggest supporter". Note that Nintendo also made specific moves, just a short time before Ubisoft pulled this, to launch an official ZombiU bundle in the US and Canada - like I said, they had gotten damn close. And I find it hilarious that, even though you KNOW that Nintendo had a heap of other titles ready to announce in January, you still think that their decision to keep emphasising Rayman Legends was because "they didn't have anything else to show off".
"Who? Rayman Legends is a niche title in a niche series. It's not a system seller no matter how much critics talk it up." - The original Rayman sold 3 million units. That's no small number. The Raving Rabbids Wii titles all sold over a million, and the first one was definitely a significant Wii seller. Rayman Legends had strong hype around it. Now look at the level of reaction the announcement of delay and multiplatform has had - EA's announcement that they weren't really going to support the Wii U didn't get such a reaction. The cancellation of Metro: Last Light didn't get such a reaction. The announcement of Bayonetta 2 as a Wii U exclusive didn't get such a reaction from PS3 and 360 owners. But Rayman being delayed was enough to send people into a tailspin, with nearly 7000 people already having signed the petition (which openly says 'go ahead and release on the other platforms whenever you like, but release the Wii U version now, when it's already completed'), massive backlash on facebook, various forums, etc, to the point that Ubisoft felt they needed to make another announcement to try to soften the blow (of course, Ubisoft's failure of a PR response basically just inflamed things further), and speculation that Microsoft is "at fault" for the delay. Doesn't exactly sound like the reaction a niche title would get.
Sonic on Wii did quite well. You're right that Generations struggled in terms of relative sales... but Sonic Colors sold significantly better. The worst-selling Sonic adventure title on the Wii sold about the same as Generations sold on the PS3. Of course, Sega didn't bother releasing the game on the Wii, which is unfortunate, as it probably would have sold very, very well. And current install base of platforms, as I said, isn't relevant. People will buy a system for a top quality title, and Rayman Legends was looking to be such a game - especially given the release timing.
"It's not Ubisoft's job to bulster Nintendo's lineup. That's Nintendo's job. If Nintendo wanted it exclusive they could have paid Ubisoft to make it so." - you're right, it's not Ubisoft's job to bulster Nintendo's lineup. But it's Ubisoft's job to choose release dates for games that will best position the game. Releasing on the Wii U in February would have greatly benefited Rayman Legends, as it would leverage the Wii U owner's desire for a solid game, it would have avoided just about all possible competition, and it wouldn't have in any way harmed the potential for strong sales on the PS3 and 360 once those versions released - indeed, it would have benefited those versions.
Furthermore, Ubisoft couldn't possibly have made the decision based on predicted Wii U sales numbers. For one, they planned it as a launch title, and by definition the system has no sales at that time. For another, the system was performing very well even in early January - the significant dropoff only happened in late January, past the date by which Ubisoft would have to have the game in production (that is, discs being pressed) in order to have it ready for February. Meanwhile, the Wii U had been selling better than either the PS3 or 360 did at launch, and neither of those systems suffered from lost exclusives or massive delays because of their weak launches. It's all just FUD.
"Everyone else interested in the game will walk into Gamestop and buy it for what ever system they own." - right, and that's not going to happen if it launches at the same time as multiple major AAA titles on all platforms. And you're right - only the hardcore Nintendo fanboys care that the game was exclusive - nobody here has suggested otherwise. What we care about is the DELAY, which Ubisoft has openly admitted was purely so that it could be simultaneous multiplatform - the Wii U version is ALREADY FINISHED.
"Rayman Legends does not compete with GTA." - oh yes it does. It competes with every single other title for marketing time, for hype, and for dollars. This is what hurt Rayman Origins so much. And while other titles don't have fixed release dates, I'd like to point out that we know that most of the titles I mentioned are set for release by "Summer" or "Q2", meaning BEFORE September, and the others are almost certain based on simple logic - Nintendo isn't going to release all of their heavy-hitters in the same month, they're going to spread them through the "Fall" period... and since Mario is practically guaranteed to get November, we can expect Wind Waker U to be released in October at the latest - close enough that people will be paying attention to it.
More importantly, release in September puts it in the worst position relative to E3. E3 happens in June. This sets the marketing going for a lot of titles. That marketing will reach a crescendo around September, before the shift towards targetted marketing in October and November for the specific releases happening then. As for the ZombiU numbers... how the HELL do you call those numbers weak? 320,000 units in 10 weeks is quite a strong performance, 10%+ of the install base already, assuming that nobody downloaded it (it's an eShop title as well). For a launch title, that's incredibly strong. Let me demonstrate - Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII released on the PS3 around launch. It sold, in its first 10 weeks in the US, just 74k. It did about the same in Europe in its first 10 weeks. It sold 630k lifetime.
Call of Duty 3 on the PS3, a launch title, sold 144k in the US in its first 10 weeks. In Europe, it sold 164k in its first 10 weeks. This puts sales of ZombiU on par with CoD3 on the PS3 in the US, and not far behind in Europe. CoD wasn't the megafranchise it is today, but it was a major AAA title even then. CoD3 on the PS3 sold about 1.4 million copies. That was more than enough to get it Modern Warfare, as well as a long list of other titles. Why are Wii U games being held to a higher standard?
"Nobody but the most hardcore fanboys keep track of that kind of stuff. People always want games on their system of choice." - yeah, you're right. Only the most hardcore fanboys keep track of the fact that third parties continually treat Wii owners, and now Wii U owners, as though they're second-class citizens. (that's heavy sarcasm there, by the way). Nobody cares that Ubisoft uses the argument "but if we didn't, PS3 and 360 owners would be sad that they had to wait for it to be ported", but fails to put 90% of their big titles on the Wii U, I'm sure.
This is *precisely* why I called you a Sony Fanboy. Because it's an utterly nonsense argument, asserting that somehow only the hardcore Nintendo fanboys would care that the Wii U isn't getting quality software from third parties, but third parties are quite happy to use the equivalent argument for why they need to port Wii U exclusives to other platforms.
Not a single person (other than the hardcore fanboys) would have complained if they'd gone "Wii U owners are getting a great game, but we've realised that PS3 and 360 owners will be missing out, and so we are now asking the development team to port the game to those systems. Expect the PS3 and 360 versions in September, with modified content to make them suit the platform". Nobody would have complained much (there'd have been accusations of stupidity on releasing Rayman Legends in September, but no complaints about second-class treatment) if Ubisoft had gone "We have noticed that 360 and PS3 owners are wanting Rayman Legends just as much as Wii U owners. We have also noticed that Wii U owners are wanting more solid AAA titles. As such, we announce today that Rayman Legends and Splinter Cell: Blacklist will both be releasing on PS3, 360, and Wii U in September".
The problem, and it's been made quite clear, is that Ubisoft used such a hypocritical argument to delay a completed game on the Wii U, which would have launched at the best possible time for the game and for the system, in order to make it simultaneous multiplatform, while not even hinting at any interest in doing the same in reverse - not even announcing another title for the Wii U. THAT is the problem - treating the Wii U owners like second-class citizens... but then, even that's not the true problem.
You know how they announced it? "We're afraid we're going to have to delay Rayman Legends by six months. We're sorry for that, Wii U owners. But here's the good news - we're also releasing it on 360 and PS3". That's like pouring salt into the wound - suggesting that it's somehow good news for Wii U owners that the game will be releasing on 360 and PS3. And it took another day and a statement from someone who worked on the Wii U version to get Ubisoft to admit that that wasn't the best way to announce it. And their solution to the resulting PR problem? "Oh, we'll give you an 'exclusive demo'" - as though Wii U owners would expect the demo to be exclusive when the game itself, which was supposed to be exclusive, suddenly got delayed 6 months and made multiplatform. Like I said - hypocrisy.
"The only decision that would have screwed anyone would have been to NOT port it to all platforms." - and once AGAIN, you suggest that people have a problem with it being multiplatform. NOBODY F'ING SAID THAT. And this, again, is why I called you a fanboy - you ignored what people were saying, injected your own personal bias, rationalised by going "Wii U doesn't have a big install base, releasing an exclusive for the system is a bad idea", and then implied that anybody who didn't agree with you was a "hardcore fanboy". By the way, why should any company have released any game for the 360 or PS3 at launch? After all, the PS2 had a much bigger install based than the 360, and then the Wii had a much bigger install base than the PS3. So why did the latter two get exclusives? Oh right - BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. You release exclusives on systems, and attract fanbases to them.
But hey, when I say that Ubisoft's decision is a stupid one, it HAS to be a smart one, because they're releasing it on multiple platforms now - never mind that the multiplatform decision was the ONE FUCKING THING I AGREED WITH.
Now, care to tell me again that it was a smart decision, based on your own failure to comprehend what the problem was? Or will you admit that you didn't pay enough attention the first time around?
