| oniyide said: i gave a few other guys plausible explanations read them option one makes no sense as MS already pays for exclusive advertisment, so in a way you are actual right. but it makes no sense for them to spend even MORE money to keep a version of a game underwraps that was never a threat to them EVER and never was going to be. Sony makes even less sesne since there version sells almost as much WITHOUT them having to spend an extra dime. option 2, but why? why even make the version anyway if they are going to sabotage it. and no its not to please shareholders as that version accounts for 1% of sales. Hell i wouldnt be surprised if some shareholders say lets not even waste the money it cost to port and not have a Wii U version at all. what other acitvision games were cancelled on WIi U? and were any of them close to the importance or popularity of COD? kind of doubt it. |
Which "plausible explanations" are you referring to? The thing where you suggest that Activision "just don't give a damn"? Because that doesn't explain why they don't just have it listed in a single sentence somewhere saying "also coming to Wii U". It's not enough to explain why they aren't pushing the hell out of it, you have to explain why they don't just respond to questions about it by going "it's coming". It requires no real effort on their part in any way, and gives their customers a heads up, not to mention treating them with a little more respect.
I didn't say that either option "makes sense", but that they are at least plausible. The other options aren't even plausible. When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I quite agree that it seems silly for MS or Sony to pay for Activision to actively ignore the Nintendo system version. And I quite agree that it seems silly for Activision to sabotage the game and yet still make it. But they're the only options I can see that aren't completely implausible (like your "explanation" that Activision don't give a damn, which not only suffers from "why bother making it, then?", but also from "wouldn't it mean less effort if they didn't have to keep deflecting questions about the existence of the Wii U version?")
As for the point about cancelling of Wii/Wii U games, let's suppose that they haven't done it before (I'm pretty sure they have, but it will take time to find specific examples with links, etc). It still doesn't make sense for them to be concerned about it - as you say, CoD is their most popular/important franchise right now. If they weren't going to support Wii U with the next CoD, then there's not much reason to expect them to support it with any other title, either... so why would it be a problem if they announced that the CoD Wii U version was cancelled? Presumably, if they were cancelling it after having spent some time developing it, it would be because they were completely pulling out from Wii U support (in which case, there's really no damage done by having first announced it)... and for that matter, they could just go with the trick that was used for the Wii U version of Aliens: Colonial Marines, with an "indefinite delay". So whether they've got a track record or not, there's simply no valid argument for failing to announce the Wii U version because of the possibility that they might not release it.
So again, I ask you: can you provide any alternative, actually-plausible explanations for their behaviour? It can't be an appeasement thing, it can't be due to Nintendo (as in, by request of Nintendo), it can't be due to fear of having to cancel it, it can't be due to cost of revealing it, and it can't be lack of care (as I said, it takes so little effort to just add "will also be available on Wii U" at the end of a press release and would make a net reduction in action necessary). Since all of those are impossible, what's left? I can't think of any other explanation except the two I've put forward - sabotage, or being paid off. While they're silly reasons for it to happen, they aren't blatant nonsense - you can't completely reject the possibility, because we know that MS and Sony pay for exclusivity deals, etc, and we know that studios have sabotaged Wii U (and Wii) games in the past (and don't bother trying to deny it - there's really no other way to interpret things like announcing Mass Effect Trilogy for other systems a short time before ME3 is set to release on Wii U, for the same price). Whether the actions "make sense", they're things that we know happen in the industry, and they're not inconsistent with the circumstance.
