| Kresnik said: Well, the point wasn't that they were going to make a Tony Hawk themed mobile game. I could've used Clash of Clans or Puzzles & Dragons as my example :P Also, I'm sure you realise what a vicious cycle the 10 people thing is. Why hire a different 10 people to port their game to another platform when they could be put on a mobile project; or start work on something else for PS4/XB1 (which is clearly where their priorities are), etc. etc. I don't understand the bolded by the way. Activision did nothing to make the mobile market what it is today - that was a whole host of other developers & publishers. The state of the market caused by them (i.e. an attractive alternative place that can make some big money for little investment - a place that didn't exist during previous gens) is what I was suggesting was the problem. Again, Activision had nothing to do with that. |
I don't think the "10 people thing" is a vicious cycle. Activision is one of the biggest publishers in the industry. There is no shortage of developers in the world. Porting an already-existing game to another platform doesn't take an outrageous amount of resources or supervision. Unlike tasking a small group of incompetent designers with making a manipulative and derivative mobile game, assigning them to a project that requires no knowledge of game design would result in a better product and goodwill with gamers. Nurturing a strong relationship with your audience is not a waste of resources, it's important and it's the reason third-parties like EA and Activision find themselves unable to sell games on Nintendo consoles. They treated the Wii and DS the way mobile platforms are often treated, and they have carried over those policies to the Wii U and 3DS. A decent Call of Duty port here and there does not erase the negative reputation they've spent years cultivating for themselves with so many awful licensed games and little else. They drove their reputation into the ground on Nintendo platforms the same way the drove Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero into the ground.
A cheap mobile game might make them a quick buck, but it will only be another step towards turning the mobile market against them unless they put some effort into making it a respectable experience. A cheap Wii U port would be an investment in their future on Nintendo platforms. Instead they choose to further embitter Nintendo gamers while exploiting the naiveté of mobile gamers. I don't care if that is a more immediately appealing financial decision, I don't think it will pay off in the long run and I don't respect it.
| Mr Puggsly said: Thats the thing, you lump Tony Hawk with casual family games but the series likely had a more core audience. Maybe a PC port will come. Sometimes they happen later. Have you actually played PS3 games ported to Vita? It certainly takes more work then you've been lead to believe or we would see more. |
I lumped Tony Hawk with nothing. It is a completely different game from Guitar Hero, and both of those are completely different from Call of Duty. But I wonder what your explanation will be if and when Black Ops 3 is confirmed for release on Wii U.
I haven't played any PS3 -> Vita ports, but I assume they require less effort than a PS2 -> GBA port. Am I wrong?
| Ali_16x said: It's amazing how people are still expecting 3rd party games for Wii U. |
Activision published THPS2 for the Dreamcast five months before it was discontinued, and THPS3 for the N64 after the GameCube had already been released. Maybe you've heard of how notoriously poor the N64's third-party support was even while it was active?
