By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
oniyide on 29 June 2014
Edit Thread
Mr Khan said:
Richard_Feynman said:
RolStoppable said:
Richard_Feynman said:
Player2 said:

 


I disagree with everything you say including the very essence of this thread.

" Nintendo wouldn't get all multiplatform games, even if their system was equal to others"

How could you possibly know this? The Wii and Wii U are/were both a generation behind. The Gamecube was "equal" and got great 3rd party support even though it sold terribly.

"It has everything to do with point 1"

No it doesn't. Who plays Dark Souls? It is common knowledge that the demographic that plays these kind of games have (largely) long abandoned Nintendo consoles. No one would buy Dark Souls on Wii U - I don't see how you could offer even a shred of evidence to the opposite.

"That's already four publishers off the top of my head that denied ports before the Wii U went on sale"

Why support the Wii U when 3rd party games were a waste of time on the phenomenally successful Wii? Clearly the relevant publishers made the correct business decisions in all of those cases. As a counter example, Mass Effect 3 was released on Wii U. Do you on any level suppose that the reception it received warrants the appearance of Mass Effect 4 on Wii U? Of course not. Why do you think that is?

"meaning that Wii U sales had zero influence on those decisions."

As a publisher, you make a call and later you may change your decision.

You seem to insinuate in point 1 of the OP that the decisions made by 3rd party publishers are not purely business decisions, but are based on some sort of 'bias' against Nintendo. You delude yourself into thinking that your argument is a good one, when in fact it clearly isn't.

"because consumers' expectations for quality and polish would be raised to levels that third parties are unable/unwilling to match."

Really? You think Nintendo is the very best of the best game developer in the world and no-one else can match them? That is utter nonsense; anyone who plays PC and Sony and MS and Nintendo will tell you.

Should I list the 3rd party games that do things that Nintendo have never even tried? Do you think there is a single Nintendo title that is even in the same category as Witcher 3 in terms of content and scope? 

My guess is this conversation is pointless. I just don't find these rants of yours as amazing as anyone else.

 

1) The GameCube didn't get the third party support of Xbox, despite Xbox selling equally terribly.

2) Monster Hunter's sales on Wii/Wii U make a decent argument. The market for rigorous ARPGs is there.

3) Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but these publishers were acting with *foresight*. They decided, absent any sales, that Wii U did not deserve full third party support. If Wii U had come roaring out of the gate, these games still would not have been made.

4) Bias is all over this industry. I'd be almost as inclined to buy it as an argument than appeals to "rationality."

5) How many game-breaking bugs will Witcher 3 have, day one? Hell, check this out. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2659901

The "ship now, patch later" mentality is what Rol is addressing specifically.

1. Didnt it? in what way? what did xbox get that GC didnt? the only thing i can think of is Black an FPS. And games like SW old republic whihc were exclusive anyway, console exclusive

2. Wii U MH sales are nothing to be proud of and since that is the most recent release on a Ninty home console that is the more relevant descriptor

3. Nonsense you could ALWAYS port games later. Hell they are doign that now with PS4 and xone. Its actually smarter to wait it out.

4. You keep saying this but show us the bias.

5. You havent even played the game? what does that even have to do with anything?