| Train wreck said: Do you only game on Nintendo hardware? If so, you, and others like you, are in the extreme minority (if I had to guess <1%) and your opinion isn't really worth that much to 3rd parties. When ACIII was released, the Wii U was brand new, Ubisoft Montreal had 6+ years of development on the PS3 and Xbox 360 (and both versions still had their problems, along with the Wii U version), trying to get a port 100% correct on brand new hardware (when you have other hardware you are used to working with) is expensive and again the logical choice was to put a better effort on consoles where you have more experience one, and have the userbase that will buy it two. Why would an company advertise a game to a userbase that is nonexistent? Splinter Cell: Blacklist, same issue as ACIII, first year development for Ubisoft. When you have development shared between other, more establish consoles, the weakest one (by hardware and marketshare) will get the least amount of attention. What they make work for Rayman, they failed on those two games...which makes sense since Raymay was Wii U exclusive for all of its development, they had 100% dedication to it. They delayed a completed game to allow other versions to release at the same time. These issues wouldn't be a problem with franchises established on a system, but neither Splinter Cell nor Assassin's Creed had established markets that would buy them immediately. Nintendo gamers have learned not to rush into purchases of third party titles, because they tend to be poorly ported, glitchy affairs. Whats with this Nintendo gamers have learned nonsense? These gamers didnt buy the Wii U version because there were better and cheaper options available to them which goes back to my first point of being a Nintendo only gamer. |
First, I mostly game on Nintendo hardware, but I do also game on PC. But thanks for suggesting that I must be "in the extreme minority". Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? I'm looking for facts, so you'd better have a study or something similar to back up your claim. Otherwise I'll just assume you're full of it.
I don't mind ACIII having some technical imperfections. I *do* mind them not advertising the Wii U version. And I do mind Blacklist having major glitches. But ultimately, those aren't the issue. I'm not arguing that ACIII should have been better, I'm arguing that they're not solid arguments for why third parties shouldn't support the Wii U. They're franchises that are new to the console, inferior to the other versions, and yet people point at them as proof that there's no market for that franchise on the system.
The logical thing to do would be to build on the market established by those titles, use the lessons from development to make a tighter port, and push the title harder. Instead, there was no followup to Blacklist at all, while ACIV lacked any DLC support that the other versions had, had some major framerate issues, and no attempt was made to seriously push the game on the Wii U (but hey, at least the ads had the Wii U logo, albeit rather small, at the end). Markets have to be built for each franchise, they don't just magically materialise.
Meanwhile, I do like how you tried to sneak in that blatant attack on the Wii U with the implication that the Wii U's hardware is weaker than the PS3 and 360 - facts that just don't hold up.
Mind you, if it weren't for continuing attitudes by third parties, the issues I've listed about ACIII and ACIV probably wouldn't have stopped the games selling well. But when you're used to being skeptical of the quality of a third party title, you're a lot less likely to be satisfied with "almost comparable" quality. And that's the point I'm making - if you have a choice between buying a third party title and a first party title, and you know the first party title will be good, you're going to need the third party title to actually give you reason to look at it. And "we've almost reached comparable quality with the other versions" looks more like "we couldn't be bothered to put in the resources to get the game up to scratch".
And I've done that repeatedly, so I'm not misrepresenting things at all. About three quarters of my Wii library is third-party titles, covering everything from Red Steel (I really wanted a real sequel to that game), to No More Heroes, to Dewy's Adventure. I bought Call of Duty: World at War, because I saw Treyarch's effort even despite Activision's treatment. And again, I bought Black Ops, because I saw Treyarch's efforts. But as the Wii generation went on, I became more and more cautious about buying non-Nintendo games, because multiple times I'd ended up with games that just didn't live up to what they should have been; a problem I almost never have had with Nintendo games.
Nowadays, I tend to go with more independent titles, because most of them put passion and effort into every game they release, on every platform the game is released on. I'm itching for a Dynasty Warriors on my console because I love the Hyrule Warriors titles and want more of that gameplay... yet no such title is on the way, as far as I can see. I've bought multiple third party titles only to be kicked in the gut, colloquially speaking, each time, this generation.
I buy good games. There are only a few types of games I just don't like (not a fan of the "Horror" titles, because I don't get enjoyment out of games trying to scare me, whether they succeed or not), and otherwise, if a good game is made, I'll pretty much certainly buy it.
I buy Nintendo consoles because I know there will be enough good games to satisfy me. Nintendo games are pretty much guaranteed to be good games. But I'd love to have more good games, and I've prioritised third party titles over first-party titles multiple times, where there's been good reason to do so (Rayman Legends, for example).
But it's funny - people like you like to refer to "Nintendo-only gamer", as though that's a thing. What? They buy Nintendo consoles and not the PS/Xbox systems? They must only like Nintendo games, right?
