| Mummelmann said:
1: I never said the Wii U was dodgy to develop for; I said that "And did you miss the part where the PS3 lost a bunch of support due to slow start, being a year after the 360 and being dodgy to program for?" How on earth did you manage to turn that into "The Wii U is dodgy to develop for"? 2: Yes, the PS4 and X1 got more support from the beginning because their predecessors showed that PS and Xbox could sell 3rd party software really well, even far into their lifecycle while the Wii was completely irrelevant at this point (and long before that, even). This is a huge part of my point and you managed to miss it twice now; the Wii name had faded into obscurity and the PS3 and 360 kept on going, regardless of the reason behind the Wii's fading away, the fact still remains that it had actually faded away. Can I make that more clear? That is why the PS4 and X1 got games from the start; developers knew that they would move software, the PS4 already has 28 million sellers after only 16-17 months on the market, the One has 18 million sellers after the same amount of time and the Wii U has 9 million sellers after 28 months on the market, why do you think the PS4 and X1 got good support from the start again? I don't feel like explaining this very logical assumption on the developers' part one more time. 3: "It's just two games going multi." It was one of the defining franchises on the PS consoles and the most successful JRPG (and RPG in general) series in history with 110 million + sold, with the vast majority of that being on PS consoles and PS exclusive, that's like calling Mario Kart unimportant and MK has actually sold less than this. That's utterly ridiculous to write. 4: No, no one had the same incentive to develop/publish for the Wii U as they did on the PS4 and X1, due to; Wii becoming a non-factor and not a shred of a natural generation bridge to walk across, clinging to another chipset die and coming off of a market leader that showed a poor ability to move traditional 3rd party games in any number. It is not the same in the slightest and this is a well known fact to every single user on this forum, which includes you. 5: The Wii sold around 16.5 million in its first full CY on the market, followed by an immense 24 million the year after, 21 the year after that and 17 million in the fourth CY, and then stumbled down to 11 million in its fifth CY, this is not normal behavior for a market leader and the competition kept on growing for all of these five years, peaking in year 6 and 7 respectively (if I recall correctly), while the Wii peaked in its second CY. That is what I call a crash, especially compared to the competition. The fact that it sold quickly and sold a lot is easily trumphed by the fact that it disappeared so quickly compared to the others, and especially other market leaders and the fact that it did horribly at selling most traditional 3rd party games (which was, of course, ususally blamed on the developers themselves). I know people like to pretend that the Wii followed a completely normal sales curve for a market leader; it really, really did not. 6: PS3 and 360 didn't need to soar into 1st place; they sold mountains of 3rd party software while around 35-40% of the total software sales on the Wii was 1st party titles and practically every big multiplatform franchise and series did really poorly (Call of Duty is the very best example here) despite the advantage in installed base all along. It is a real no-brainer to see why the developers have opted the way they have all this time. 7: Even the 3rd party titles the Wii did get, sold horribly almost without exception, this is not developer incentive; this a huge red flag. Game development is not a charity and no one owes any console manufacturer anything for past deeds. 8: By the time the Wii U launched six years after the Wii, the Wii had simply vanished even from the memories of the industry and sold next to nothing, this is unheard of for a market leader. The PS2 sold over 30% of its lifetime sales after the PS3 released, for a quick comparison. And, of course they were forced, since when does market leader fade into obscurity while the competition keeps growing and then release their next console a year before the others? Again, this is not normal for a market leader; not even close. 9: I have said all along that the Gamepad was a mistake; you disagree, that doesn't make you right and me wrong. If anything; the sales figures, despite huge releases and even advertising show that I am more likely to be correct in thinking that Gamepad has made the Wii U a bipolar product that largely misses two markets rather than appeal to them. How can I say that a controller with extra features is a mistake? That's really easy; the Gamepad is perceived as a pale knock-off of tablets, sporting poor resolution, unimpressive battery life and buttons and sticks on it and they went so far as to try to make TV remote functionality an actual sales point. Not to mention the fact that even Nintendo themselves have done a poor job at making proper use of the controller even after all this time and it still isn't available for purchase and you can't even have two playing on unit each at once, which is truly strange for a company that has made their fortune on local multiplayer and even used this as a sales angle in almost all their commercials all along. 10: The reason it is being ignored by 3rd parties have been listed above and I don't want to spend any more time repeating myself. Where did I agree with developers insulting Nintendo fans? When and where did they insult Nintendo fans to begin with? Please, do show me. 11: 3rd parties are not first and foremost blaming consumers; they like the consumers, they are blaming Nintendo for not making an effort to draw in developers of any kind or trying to offer a decent developer environment for over two decades and for building hardware tailor-made to sell Nintendo games first and foremost and for, twice in a row now, forcing developers to bifurcate their programming efforts if they want to include Nintendo in the multiplat development process. Pair this with sales of games that have been released and have sold incredibly poorly; there is no huge mystery here but one cannot see what one does not want to see. Take your time and read what people actually write and if you want to start your posts by pointing out how badly flawed mine is; make sure you have actual arguments to present rather than this. If you keep responding in the same fashion; I see no point in spending any more time on this at all. |
1. Mentioning ps3 as dodgy to developed seemed like calling wii u the same, since you were comparing the two.
2. "Completely irrelevant", "falling into obscurity". Look, Wii starded faster than any console and only slowed down AFTER games stopped coming. ps360 started slow and got better later. They only kept relevante because the continued being supported by third parties. There is no magic there. You are just trying to make wii look bad.
3. "that's like calling Mario Kart unimportant" It's just two third party games going multiplatform. That by itself doesn't affect anyone in anegative way and I simply can't consider it as big news. It's not like a real exclusive franchise, like Mario kart, going multiplatform.
4. "coming off of a market leader that showed a poor ability to move traditional 3rd party games in any number" Please show me those numbers, I'm rather curious now. Why do you keep saying wii didn't sell third party software when it clearly sold a lot? Wii has many 3rd party games from many genres selling a lot. Many ps2 ports sold from 500k to 2m+ and non ps2 titles did the same.
5. It sold more than the competition and on par/better with previous market leaders except ps2, that's it. Again, it declined after support stopped, no mystery here. "and the fact that it did horribly at selling most traditional 3rd party games" Yet again, only if you think 500k-2m+ = selling horribly.
6. Again, show me those "sold poorly" numbers. You mentioned cod, but that's one of the multiplatforms that did the best. It did sell more than the ps3 versions untill the important MW 3 skipped it and sales declined. Still, the few multiplatforms that released sold from well to great. non multiplatforms also had great perforance.
7. No need to repeat myself when you are simply repeating that 3rd party software sold horribly when the opposite happened.
8. You are severely exaggerating wii's decline. and let me remind you that ps2 and ps were also exceptions as market leaders. previous consoles didn't sell as much after the generation ended and in ps2's case, it was mostly due to emergent markets. And of course, they still got notable releases 1 or two years after being replaced, wii did not. No mistery.
9. Already explained that the gamepad by itself is no mistake. It's a controller with a touchscreen.
10. The reason why it's being ignored is lack of professionalismfrom developers, unfortunately.
11. Third parties insult wii u owners everytime they say BS like "the market for our games isn't on wii u". If zombi U wasn't profitable, that's because of budget problems. The sales were a success for a new IP as a launch title.
you mostly said that wii didn't sell 3rd party software but vgchartz data says otherwise. there's not much to say after that. You clearly won't change your mind, making it meaningless to keep discussing.
