Mr Khan said:
Scisca said:
Mr Khan said:
Player2 said:
Cobretti2 said:
Also their biggest mistake was thinking ports of GREAT 3rd party games would sell the system. Sadly it did not so they kind of been caught in the drought. |
Actually their biggest mistake was believing that they could get the same treatment as Microsoft or Sony from third parties.
|
Even the best of us cling to the myth that third parties are rational, forward-thinking groups sometimes.
|
Ask anyone who knows anything about business. Investing in Wii U now is not rational. Sad but true. Look at the CoD and ACIII sales, look at ZombiU sales. Doing what Ubi did with Rayman is 100% rational, even if it makes a few Nintendo fans angry. There is no market on Wii U, so why pump money there, when the economy is so bad and so many studios go bust all the time? 3rd parties don't care about Nintendo, Sony or MS and about which one of them is going to win or lose. They care about themselves. It just so happens that right now Nintendo is on the wrong end of the stick. You just got LEGO City. A very good exclusive game. I hope it does well and brings profit, but if it doesn't sell well, what argument would you have to convince a 3rd party dev to invest in the console?
Would you risk your own money in a Wii U game?
|
At worst, Wii U is going to end up being 25% of the future console gaming market. I'd work to build a base there, even if it's not profitable in the short run, to make sure that i don't have another generation made almost entirely of red ink, like most third parties out there.
|
That is far from certain, depending on many factors and variables, they could easily become a lot smaller than that (my assumptions are based on the 8th generation of home consoles moving around 150-180 million units lifetime). At this point, I'd go so far as to say that 25% is possibly the best case scenario for the Wii U, based on what I've been saying about base appeal of the machine itself.
