| Kresnik said: Sadly this is only going to add more fuel to the fire of the seemingly-never-ending cycle of: Nintendo fan - "We're not going to buy your [gimped in some way] game if you're not putting the effort in!" 3rd party publisher - "We're not going to put any effort in if you're not going to buy our games!" Something has to give. I'm not saying Nintendo fans are wrong for doing this, just that it's very different to how third parties would be treated on other platforms. Even a DLC-less Need for Speed on Vita managed 500k + digital and that was still not good enough for a sequel or even the DLC to come. I think the problem is WiiU's identity. Quite rightfully, people aren't buying these ports because they can also get the same game on PS360, so unless gamepad features are absolutely key to your enjoyment of the title (or you own multiple systems and the title happens to be one of the ones which runs better on WiiU) then there's just no point. Which makes me question why Nintendo released a system in the way that they did. Meh. Still a dick move by Warner. |
If i have the right read, Nintendo's thinking was strategically defensive. Their platform just needs to be good enough to "run" the third party games, if not especially well, so that people who buy the platform for Nintendo games first and foremost won't have to get another platform for their CoD/Assassin's Creed fix. It's just to give people no reason to look elsewhere for their gaming needs.
Where the implementation was botched, then, was in Nintendo not providing enough compelling software to prompt people to think of buying a Wii U before buying one of the other platforms (because once you've bought a Sony or MS platform, the question becomes "why should i buy this console *just* for the Nintendo games, and the math doesn't work in Nintendo's favor at all at that point), that EA would completely fuck them over for no good reason at all, and that other third parties needed more incentive to play ball.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
