| oniyide said: Not giving a damn does explain it and its the best explanation. They dont give a damn becasue it is the version that traditionally doesnt contribute to the profit or sales of COD. has anyone asked if the game is coming to Wii U? im talking about a magazine for someone actually in the industry not some blogger. Yes not annoucning the version for fear of possible cancellation makes more sense than your conspiracy theory. They would look worse saying hey COD is coming to Wii U and then going around and saying it has been cancelled. The Wii U version probably isnt done or maybe only JUST started that makes way more sense than conspiracy theories, especially since we know that that version is being done by a completly different team. Now you didnt answer my question. What games have Activision annouced for Wii u that they went around and then cancelled? And no lack of time is not an excuse you brought it to the table you have to provide proof otherwise you are just talking out your butt. The WIi U hasnt been out that long where it would be hard to find if a game got cancelled, hell Activision doesnt even publish that much games. announcing a game then cancelling will always do damage as it always looks not good. By not saying anything they could avoid that whole problem and not look like the bad guys. And if they drop COD they probably would still put out Skylanders since that still makes them money. |
I always get entertainment from such irony. You still haven't explained (and it should be a pretty quick explanation if it's possible) why Activision couldn't just have a single line on their press release saying "also to be released on Wii U", and yet you demand that I take my time to go through and find the links for examples of games cancelled for what was nothing more than a parenthetical point. You demand I spend a significant amount of time collecting links for a minor side point, while refusing to spend the thirty seconds to provide an argument against the primary issue at hand. By the way, the reason I said I wasn't going to do it then was that it was 5 AM and I needed to go to sleep - I had every intention of coming back to it... before your most recent post.
And no, they would not "look worse" for "going around and saying it has been cancelled" - indeed, given the current gaming media climate, they'd probably be highly praised by various media outlets for cancelling the Wii U version. You'd have to be hiding under a rock to not notice the caustic attitude that the gaming media has towards Nintendo right now (not that the media has been particularly pro-Nintendo at any point in the last 10 years, but it has steadily gotten worse with time).
And how do we "know that the version is being done by a completly [sic] different team"? We don't technically know it's being done at all. If it is, it could very well be being done by the main team. Or it could be being done by the secondary team. Or by Treyarch. Or by Nintendo, for all we know.
You assert that the Nintendo system version doesn't contribute to the profit or sales of CoD... so why bother doing it at all? And in what way does actively refusing to comment on Nintendo system versions' possibilities help them? Although it's hard to find examples of Activision being asked about Advanced Warfare (see previous point about caustic attitude of media towards Nintendo), I can certainly find examples for previous titles.
http://www.digitalspy.com.au/gaming/news/a490841/call-of-duty-ghosts-could-bypass-wii-u-rubin-unsure-about-its-status.html#~oLSgN68HwQpSlP <--- By the way, here's an example of how they could do it... and this is the only time in recent history that they have done it.
http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/37798/call-of-duty-black-ops-2-wii-u-ideas/
http://www.slashgear.com/activisions-call-of-duty-black-ops-2-might-head-to-wii-u-12233582/
http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/26489/modern-warfare-3-wii-is-not-currently-a-confirmed-platform-infinity-ward/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-08-03-modern-warfare-3-wii-confirmed (yep, it took that long, that time, too)
... actually, I did find Activision's comment on the issue: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/is-call-of-duty-advanced-warfare-coming-to-wii-u/1100-6420020/
They said, straight out, that it was not coming to the system. And yet, it has once more popped up in their website code, this time in a form that cannot be dismissed as a holdover from previous code. You can't tell me that them flat-out lying and saying "no" when asked if the game is coming to the system is better than announcing it, and then cancelling it with a plausible excuse if necessary. Heck, they'd probably win points for being upfront with their consumers at each stage.
It's easy to dismiss my point as "conspiracy theory". But I haven't actually asserted a conspiracy at all. That's your characterisation. As I've already said, it's well-known by now that there have been games whose releases have been sabotaged by their publishers, and that it's well-known that both MS and Sony have paid for special exclusivity deals. Neither is a conspiracy. But even if they were, you must realise that conspiracies do happen - they're not things like "worldwide conspiracy to take over your life" or stuff like that. Dismissing an argument on the basis of it being a "conspiracy theory" is actually exactly equivalent to conspiracy theorists who dismiss an argument on the basis of it being made by "one who is in cahoots" - it's a cop-out from actually addressing the facts.
So once again, I'm going to ask that simple question, because you refuse to address it (other than just repeating an argument I've already demolished multiple times): why haven't they just included Wii U on the press releases? Before you answer, I'll once again point out that "fear of having to cancel it" just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. What alternative explanation is there for them refusing to confirm (and in some cases, actively denying the existence of) a Wii U version?
