Mr Khan said:
Mythmaker1 said:
| Mr Khan said:
There's a difference between not caring and acting like the game doesn't exist. If it was a simple matter of not caring, why not just tag a "Wii U" logo onto the first (non Xbox event) trailer for Ghosts that came out? You don't have to talk about it, you don't have to up-play it, but to act like it doesn't exist? To not allow people to pre-order it? What possible motive could there be?
Remember the interview with the guy from Infinity Ward at E3? He basically said it was coming, but also implied that Activision's lawyers would not let him openly admit as such. What possible reason could there be for that?
They are not just ignoring it, they are actively attempting to discourage people from buying it, but that is against their own interests (especially since it's pretty clear that they're not just looking for an excuse to drop support like EA was. Activision, at least, usually puts in a modicum of effort with their Nintendo Call of Duties). So what's the motive, here? Why would Activision self-sabotage?
Microsoft wouldn't spend "extra" money for this, either. It was simply part of the moneyhat that got them timed DLC exclusivity: bury the non-Xbox versions, but Activision couldn't really afford to bury the PlayStation version, so it was agreed to bury the Nintendo ones instead.
|
Or...
The Wii U version was in a state of limbo, and they were waiting until post-E3 to see what Nintendo's plan for the system was.
Possibly legitimate, although by that point they would have likely been too far committed.
There was an issue in the production and they weren't sure it could be completed on time.
More likely than the first one, although why be so hush-hush then? You can always delay later.
They wanted to encourage sales on other systems first because they are more profitable.
For DLC sales, possibly, but you also want to make sure that the Wii U SKU itself will make money.
They wanted to keep the "mystery" alive to stir up speculation in order to draw more attention to it.
Quite stupid on their part.
They were still deciding whether it was worth their time to release it on a system where it won't make a lot of money for them.
Again, likely too far committed by that point.
-
Any of those would be a more plausible explanation for them to have done this than "they sabotaged their own profits by 'burying' the game but are so desperate for a profit they'll release iit anyway."
|
|
"Possibly legitimate..."
Perhaps, but I seem to recall hearing that Crisis 3 for Wii U was basically ready to ship when it was tossed. Granted, that could have been part of EA's "unprecedented partnership", but it does show that last-minute decisions of this kind are not without precedent.
"More likely..."
True, but with something like COD that sells so quickly, a delay of only a few weeks could have serious consequences. It may have been a factor in their thinking, in that sense.
"For DLC sales..."
With Microsoft, at least, Activision actually gets a cut of their subscription fees. Since that provides them with money, they're incentivized to encourage sales on that platform, rather than one where that revenue stream doesn't exist. That, and it is likely a much higher priority for them to establish a foothold on other next-gen systems.
"Quite stupid..."
Certainly, but companies have been known to try this kind of thing in the past. And remember what the guy from Infinity Ward said: "It's probably in the next-gen bin, but we're not actually talking about Wii U yet because we want to keep it mysterious. It's PR guys, it's not my fault."
In the end, the point I'm making is that there are other reasons they could be making they could have done this, and they're for the most part more plausible. In terms of making sense, Microsoft has little to no reason to target Nintendo, which doesn't compete strongly in a lot of the areas Xbox excels. More likely, they'd ignore Nintendo entirely to focus on Sony, which has far more potential to erode their market share moving forward.
