By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mysteryman on 11 September 2014
Edit Thread
flagstaad said:
mysteryman said:

@bold, Perhaps they shouldn't have half-assed them then?

@bold2, The issue is that there are only 2 ways to vote with your wallet: buy or don't buy. Regardless of whether or not you only want to support 3rd party devs, buying the game sends the message that you, the customer, are happy with the way the Wii U version was handled.

@bold3, Didn't they halt development on the Wii U version for ~5 months to speed up the others? Realistically, they haven't put any more time into the Wii U version then. If anything it's less considering the difference in man-hours.

1: It is a cost-benefit equation, if they make a real effort, put a lot of time and create a great version sales are low (as in Rayman Legends), if they don't put the extra effort and make an imperfect port sales are also low, so why should they expend the extra time and effort?, to get 100k more sales? not worth it.

2: there are only 2 possible votes, but the message is open for interpretation, if the numbers go up AND you became vocal about the quality of the port companies will notice because you are a paying customer who could get more revenue for them, if the only thing you do is complain and NOT buy the games, well you were never a customer in the first place, there is no reason to pay attention to you since you have a bigger revenue source willing to buy your titles. i will give an example with watch_dogs... if for some saturnalia miracle the games sales get very good, the company can say "look they don't care about late ports" or they could say "imagine how good the sales would had been if released on time" in both cases we win, worst case scenario we still get games even if those are old ports, in the best we get games at the same time; but if the sales are bad they are going to conclude that "they were never interested in the first place" and just remove support all together, because they don't have any reason to believe that releasing at the same time would have improve the situation (just look at AC IV, Batman: AO, CoD: Ghosts and so on)

3: Yes they did, and I am very glad that you noticed, the extra effort was minimal (gamepad integration), but the total effort compared with the other version should be around the same, not less either.

Rayman Legends suffered from extremely poor handling and alienation of the Wii U user base. Yet it still sold better than, and slightly less than, the Xbox360 and PS3 versions respectively.

You can put less effort into a product, that's fine. But when you then judge sales as if it were done properly, you are just being hypocritical.

Your logic is flawed. You don't need to buy a game in order to be entitled to have an opinion about it. That opinion is the basis of whether or not you buy the game in the first place.

If you believe that "the message is open for interpretation" when voting with your wallet, then it works both ways. By not purchasing the game, while being vocal about its shortcomings, publishers should have the insight to then say "maybe the fault lies with us".

Not necessarily the same effort. If all of the other teams had a boosted number of staff from dissolving the Wii U dev team, then the Wii U version still gets less man-hours.

This move is particularly sour for Wii U owners after the Rayman Legends delay, which was due to wanting a consistent release so as to save in marketing costs and to be fair to all gamers. But when Wii U owners will be missing out, it's fine. You can argue about the wiseness of the decisions made, regarding expected sales etc. but the fact remains that they've handled it all poorly and sent mixed messages to Wii U owners.