By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Wii owners continue to fund Ubisoft's HD games

 

How do you feel about the way Ubisoft does business?

Smart move, Ubisoft. 28 19.31%
 
I would do the same, if I were in charge. 19 13.10%
 
Love you, Ubisoft! 7 4.83%
 
Suck it up, Nintendrones! 24 16.55%
 
Ubisoft: "Wii screw U." 67 46.21%
 
Total:145
oniyide on 22 July 2011
.:Dark Prince:. said:
oniyide said:
This is a funny argument. Wii owners will complain when the version of an HD game they get sucks, blaming it on the devs, knowing full well that the Wii isnt capable of of handling some of the things the HDs can do. Then they wonder why certain games that are on HD are not on Wii at all.

Did anyone complain about Black Ops on Wii? Or about Prince Of Persia: Forgotten Sands?

Wii versions of HD games CAN be done properly and still be good, the problem is just that devs decide to experiment with their B teams (on Wii only, since it's the cheapest to develop on).

Edit: Which actually isn't bad at all, but look at Capcom for example. They did that, but not JUST that.. they also released a handful of great games that show they put some effort.


You need to check the boards on Blops for Wii, there are a quite a few people complaining, mostly about poor online. POP?? Not really heard it was good.

There some games on HDs that simply cant be done on Wii due to limitations, at least not properly. Hell look at Dead Rising for a perfect example. Not saying it was total garbage, but was not close to the original one on 360. Im not saying all of them, but if your making games from the ground up on HDs, most of the time the Wii version will suffer. GTA4 & Just Cause 2 would not be able to be on Wii



Around the Network
oniyide on 22 July 2011
padib said:

My question is why would you consider it a good business opportunity to make a game for the Wii when it requires high definition and framerates as a core part of its success? I'm talking about a game like COD. That's a game I've played and I'm telling you it's a war simulation and needs to be high-def. I don't see how they could be dumb enough to want to push that on the Wii. However a game like Assassin's Creed as much as what you told me seems right the more I look at games like Tri the harder a time I have believing you.

In AC graphics are purely aesthetic. They do bring in immersion, but the Wii could very well do that too from what I see. And no, DR doesn't compare to AC, they're very different. In DR there are zombies everywhere. It's not so dense in AC from what I remember.

COD is way more popular than AC, a lot more. Which is why its probably on the Wii anyway. Its not cause its High Def, its cause its accesible and easy to get into. Cant really say the same about AC. But if you think it shouldnt be on Wii, then thats your opinion. I think all games should be muliplat, if possible. I have AC and play it regularly, if i honestly thought that game could be done on Wii, without heavy compromising, then i wouldnt even have this discussion and i own Wii also. IMHO Tri doesnt look that good. 

It gets pretty dense in some of the towns in AC, especially multiplayer. We're talking at least 100 NPCs walking around on a map. Im not saying dont make an AC for Wii, hell they did it for PSP, im just saying you will not be getting the full experience. But i guess it's better than nothin??



oniyide on 22 July 2011
padib said:
Doobie_wop said:
Nintendo shouldn't get what they don't deserve, they're probably the worse third party publisher to work with out of the big three and yet people still can't grasp why third party support on the Wii can't match the output of games on the PS3/360.

List:
- The HD consoles sell their games for $60 each at launch, that is significantly more than the $50 or lower they'd have to launch with on the Wii.

- The games people want ported from the HD consoles (Assassins Creed 2) cannot be easily ported to the Wii without major drawbacks. The resolution would make it downright ugly, the number of NPCs on screen would be significantly less, the draw distance would be much shorter and fairly foggy, the AI of the NPCs would be less intelligent, the frame-rate might take a hit, the controller layout would have to be adjusted specifically to suit the Wii remote and that could get janky. People will see the port and criticise it, if you don't want a port then you basically want a whole new AAA game made exclusively for the Wii and then that'd be criticised when Ubisoft Montreal don't have the man power to shift 100 developers to a whole new project for a platform with a history of not selling similar types of games.

- Ubisoft can't make money after the initial purchase, why should they go through the extra effort of porting or developing a new game when one of their largest sources of revenue can't be accessed because Nintendo were too cheap to put a hard drive into the Wii. DLC is important to them, it was also important for a lot of big third party games this generation.

- Nintendo aren't making any sort of effort in trying to persuade these publishers, what can they give? Sony and Microsoft are all about attracting third party publishers to their platform, it could be by funding their games, allowing Steam on the platform, putting them in the spotlight for Summer of Arcade, buying exclusive content, buying exclusive launch windows and just making their platforms as appealing as possible to develop and release games on. Nintendo doesn't make a quarter of the effort and when they do try it's always half hearted.

There are so many reasons why third party publishers choose to avoid the Wii and most of it is Nintendo's fault, they made the choice early on about what their system would be and how they'd market it and they've stuck to that stance for the last five years. Just Dance sells very well on the Wii, Ubisoft have made a legitimate effort to put out good games on the console and none of them have worked out, they're just sticking to what works.



I love this post. It helps me to understand some of the stuff Oniyide was saying. The business arguments mentioned here are great. Would Ubi Montreal transfer its AAA team to a Wii project, could it take that risk? Is that what we're expecting from the devs? If I were them I wouldn't do it either. At least if they could faithfully port their games to the Wii so as to test the waters, they could get a feel for the available audience and attempt an exclusive. But it wasn't what Nintendo offered them. I'm not blaming Nintendo, they made their choice and it was a success, but the more I read here the less I'm ready to blaim 3rd parties.

Doobie Wop explained better than i could, the WIi simply doesnt have the hardware that could have made it possible to make good translations of some of their games. Sure one could say that they do it for PSP, but thats a portable, you can get away with some stuff, because the general population knows its gonna be limited, not so for a home console, IMHO. I dont blame 3rd parties fully, they didnt tell Ninty to use last gen tech, but i cant fully blame Ninty either, they didnt know Wii was gonna be the hit it was, or im sure they would have made sure the console could be close to the others



Doobie_wop on 22 July 2011
padib said:
Doobie_wop said:
Nintendo shouldn't get what they don't deserve, they're probably the worse third party publisher to work with out of the big three and yet people still can't grasp why third party support on the Wii can't match the output of games on the PS3/360.

List:
- The HD consoles sell their games for $60 each at launch, that is significantly more than the $50 or lower they'd have to launch with on the Wii.

- The games people want ported from the HD consoles (Assassins Creed 2) cannot be easily ported to the Wii without major drawbacks. The resolution would make it downright ugly, the number of NPCs on screen would be significantly less, the draw distance would be much shorter and fairly foggy, the AI of the NPCs would be less intelligent, the frame-rate might take a hit, the controller layout would have to be adjusted specifically to suit the Wii remote and that could get janky. People will see the port and criticise it, if you don't want a port then you basically want a whole new AAA game made exclusively for the Wii and then that'd be criticised when Ubisoft Montreal don't have the man power to shift 100 developers to a whole new project for a platform with a history of not selling similar types of games.

- Ubisoft can't make money after the initial purchase, why should they go through the extra effort of porting or developing a new game when one of their largest sources of revenue can't be accessed because Nintendo were too cheap to put a hard drive into the Wii. DLC is important to them, it was also important for a lot of big third party games this generation.

- Nintendo aren't making any sort of effort in trying to persuade these publishers, what can they give? Sony and Microsoft are all about attracting third party publishers to their platform, it could be by funding their games, allowing Steam on the platform, putting them in the spotlight for Summer of Arcade, buying exclusive content, buying exclusive launch windows and just making their platforms as appealing as possible to develop and release games on. Nintendo doesn't make a quarter of the effort and when they do try it's always half hearted.

There are so many reasons why third party publishers choose to avoid the Wii and most of it is Nintendo's fault, they made the choice early on about what their system would be and how they'd market it and they've stuck to that stance for the last five years. Just Dance sells very well on the Wii, Ubisoft have made a legitimate effort to put out good games on the console and none of them have worked out, they're just sticking to what works.



I love this post. It helps me to understand some of the stuff Oniyide was saying. The business arguments mentioned here are great. Would Ubi Montreal transfer its AAA team to a Wii project, could it take that risk? Is that what we're expecting from the devs? If I were them I wouldn't do it either. At least if they could faithfully port their games to the Wii so as to test the waters, they could get a feel for the available audience and attempt an exclusive. But it wasn't what Nintendo offered them. I'm not blaming Nintendo, they made their choice and it was a success, but the more I read here the less I'm ready to blaim 3rd parties.

I'm awesome, spread the word. I want Rol to quote me though, I have a feeling he'd obliterate my arguments like Jarrod use to do on a weekly basis.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

mchaza on 22 July 2011

its what EA are doing with EA Mobile and Fish. Make easy profits on low development cost games to fund big titles like BF3 to make even bigger profit on those. But the Wii is a different story since you can make 2-3 times more profit on each title because the price is high for a experience that could be done on a ios android device.



Of Course That's Just My Opinion, I Could Be Wrong

Around the Network
oniyide on 22 July 2011
padib said:
All this is making me realize how gamer we are in all this and how much we're failing at seeing the bigger picture. Nintendo made a business decision. It benefited them, but it didn't fit with some 3rd parties' business frame. Hence Ubi not providing AAA titles on the Wii, since their AAA market base was looking for cutting-edge. Others were able to adapt (Capcom), but not entirely. It's a business question here more than anything.


Hell, anyone who looks at it objectively knew that, i did. Thats why i dont get mad at any of these companies (not as much anyway) it's the Ninty zealots who just aren't getting it



oniyide on 22 July 2011
padib said:
Dude get off your high horse, honestly.


Just telling like how it is, ok im done



o_O.Q on 22 July 2011
Final-Fan said:

o_O.Q, I'm appalled that you think publishers are doing a SERVICE to Wii gamers by "experimenting" on them with games like Soul Calibur Legends. Do you think it's sheer coincidence that whenever 360/PS3 get a big name game, and the Wii gets a version that's a totally different type of game, the latter game is the one that's a piece of trash?

Why don't the PS3 and 360 get these types of "experiments"? Because they care about those audiences, and not the Wii gamers. Do you deny it?

"soul calibur legends shows developer negligence is uncalled for." Quite the opposite: SCL was a slap in the face. I played it. Have you?

...
"if someone wanted classic soul calibur theres the HD twins if they wanted something new theres the wii version"
"its funny that people demand that devs try new things in games or games will get stale and boring but when devs actually try it you find people protesting"
"the point of the wii was to open up new forms of gameplay which they attempted"

You've brought this topic up in one form or another in just about every single one of your last 20 posts or so, and I have to say it smells to me like a desperate attempt to redirect the discussion.

(I recall that your very first post in this thread was about how publishers developed for Nintendo "similarly to how they develope for 360 and ps3", and now you seem to be arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE. Curious. And you then said that the Wii gets good and bad games "just like the PS2", hmm, I don't recall the PS2 getting weird, inevitably crappy spinoffs of every major franchise. Oh well.)

Where was I? Oh yes, you say developers do respect the Wii, it's just that it's so weak it can't be ported to, so they experiment on it, which we should be happy for because we complain about too much of the same old same old, right? (And Soul Calibur Legends was treated just as seriously as Mario Galaxy by its developers, I think you said, but I'll assume that was your trained monkey slapping the keyboard while you looked away.)

Again, this is ridiculous. The PSP got a "traditional" version of Soul Calibur. It certainly wasn't any less handicapped in its hardware than the Wii. The Wii controller, with Nunchuk, has a better analog stick and more buttons. (I assume even you wouldn't dispute the Wii is more powerful.) So: why was the Wii singled out for the weird experimental version? Couldn't it have gotten what the PSP did instead, or as well?

Your argument, if I can call it that, of "lol I thought you wanted new stuff?" falls apart when it's ONLY the Wii getting these and they're almost ALWAYS trash. This isn't taking the industry in a new direction. It's disrespecting the Wii audience. And the fact that you can't see that may be why Rol figures you disrespect them too.

"I'm appalled that you think publishers are doing a SERVICE to Wii gamers"

no not just wii gamers... but gaming as a whole... because of nintendos efforts with the wii motion control is now seen as a more viable gaming option than it was before companies like datasoft and mattel and even sony ( eyetoy ) attempted to push motion in gaming before but it never took off like it has now


"Why don't the PS3 and 360 get these types of "experiments"?"

thats not entirely tue... i'll give you a few examples - the ps eye for ps3 and kinect for 360 can be seen as experimenting but the difference here of course is that sony and microsoft made their consoles far more versatile and focused on conventional gameplay primarily unlike nintendo


"your very first post in this thread was about how publishers developed for Nintendo "similarly to how they develope for 360 and ps3""

what i said : "you mean other than the games developed for nintendo platforms? similarly to how they develope for 360 and ps3?"

i'm not sure how you misinterpreted that but i'll clarify - my only point there was that devs develope for all 3 platforms... that was all

 

"And Soul Calibur Legends was treated just as seriously as Mario Galaxy by its developers"

nope at this point i'm kind of realising that just like rolstoppable you love to put words in my mouth this is what was said :

"3. "A true gamer rejects the bastardization of a beloved series"

what makes mario galaxy any less of a bastardisation? because it was successful? because you say so? "

my point is obviously that mario galaxy regardless of being a better game or not is a step away from how 3d mario was usually played just like soul calibur, devs took the motion aspect of the console and tried to incorporate it making it a bastardisation to how the original game was played as rol said


"Again, this is ridiculous. The PSP got a "traditional" version of Soul Calibur"

true valid point but you still don't get it... the psp was always built with conventional controls in mind, however on the other hand the wii from the beginning was mean't to be unconventional 

 

"why was the Wii singled out for the weird experimental version?"

again i addressed this point above 

 

my bottomline here is that wii owners should never have expected conventional experiences from a console that was never intended to be a conventional console, at some point compromises must be made 



Final-Fan on 23 July 2011
o_O.Q said:
Final-Fan said:

Your argument, if I can call it that, of "lol I thought you wanted new stuff?" falls apart when it's ONLY the Wii getting these and they're almost ALWAYS trash. This isn't taking the industry in a new direction. It's disrespecting the Wii audience. And the fact that you can't see that may be why Rol figures you disrespect them too.
"I'm appalled that you think publishers are doing a SERVICE to Wii gamers"
1.  no not just wii gamers... but gaming as a whole... because of nintendos efforts with the wii motion control is now seen as a more viable gaming option than it was before companies like datasoft and mattel and even sony ( eyetoy ) attempted to push motion in gaming before but it never took off like it has now

"Why don't the PS3 and 360 get these types of "experiments"?"
2.  thats not entirely tue... i'll give you a few examples - the ps eye for ps3 and kinect for 360 can be seen as experimenting but the difference here of course is that sony and microsoft made their consoles far more versatile and focused on conventional gameplay primarily unlike nintendo

"your very first post in this thread was about how publishers developed for Nintendo "similarly to how they develope for 360 and ps3""
what i said : "you mean other than the games developed for nintendo platforms? similarly to how they develope for 360 and ps3?"
3.  i'm not sure how you misinterpreted that but i'll clarify - my only point there was that devs develope for all 3 platforms... that was all

"And Soul Calibur Legends was treated just as seriously as Mario Galaxy by its developers"
nope at this point i'm kind of realising that just like rolstoppable you love to put words in my mouth this is what was said :
"A true gamer rejects the bastardization of a beloved series" (Rol)
"what makes mario galaxy any less of a bastardisation? because it was successful? because you say so?"
4.  my point is obviously that mario galaxy regardless of being a better game or not is a step away from how 3d mario was usually played just like soul calibur, devs took the motion aspect of the console and tried to incorporate it making it a bastardisation to how the original game was played as rol said

"Again, this is ridiculous. The PSP got a "traditional" version of Soul Calibur"
5.  true valid point but you still don't get it... the psp was always built with conventional controls in mind, however on the other hand the wii from the beginning was mean't to be unconventional

"why was the Wii singled out for the weird experimental version?"
6.  again i addressed this point above

1.  That completely failed to address my argument.  I mean, completely.  Absolutely no part of it was relevant to what I said. 

2.  That is totally off point.  You talked about hardware; I had talked about software. 

3.  OK, in that case, why would you say that?  It makes no sense.  The OP talked about a game Ubisoft made for the Wii.  How could you possibly think pointing out that Ubisoft makes games for the Wii is anything but asinine?  That is why I misinterpreted you.  Therefore I thought you were claiming they put forth similar efforts in developing for the Wii vs. PS3 or 360. 

4.  I think you and I have different ideas of what constitutes "bastardization" of a franchise.  I also think I am not the one whose idea is wrong.  In fact, I challenge you to find one single person other than yourself who is willing to come in this thread and say:  "I think Mario Galaxy is a bastardization of 3D Mario, just like Soul Calibur Legends is a bastardization of Soul Calibur."  You are also wrong about Galaxy being just as much of a departure from 3D Mario as SCL was from SC.  Hint:  motion controls aren't the biggest thing that changed in SCL. 

5.  You seem to think that the fact that the Wii Remote has a lot of motion controls means that every single game on the Wii must be and is a radical departure from the way games control and play up through last generation and continuing on the 360 and PS3.  This explains your general attitude, as well as the way you lump SMG in with SCL; however, it is incredibly ignorant.  Not every Wii game relies on the pointer and "waggle".  The Classic Controller does, in fact, exist, and Brawl isn't the only one that it's a better option than the Wii Remote to play the game on. 

Even if I assume the CC doesn't exist, the PSP, with its traditional controls, actually has one analog stick, JUST LIKE THE WII, only not as good; two shoulder buttons, 4 face buttons, and a D-pad.  The Wii has 2 nunchuk buttons, 2 easily accessible buttons (A/B), 2 less-easily-accessible ones (+/-), and a D-pad.  (Not counting the 1/2 buttons, as I'm imagining a grip that pretty much makes them inaccessible.)  ONOZE there might be one or two whole moves that use a motion control instead of a face button.  What tragedy, obviously this explains why the PSP is better suited for a "real" SC game.  Is this honestly your position? 

6.  In that you said, basically, "because the Wii is the weird experimental console", I suppose you did. 

7.  "Couldn't it have gotten what the PSP did instead, or as well?"
You didn't quite answer this one; I suppose it's because the answer is "yes" and that doesn't fit your narrative. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

lewisgerm on 23 July 2011
o_O.Q said:
RolStoppable said:
o_O.Q said:

i agree with the breaking the game part for certain... but you must remember that brawl had it as being optional it didn't disregard the motion controls ( the main feature of the wii ) completely obviously that wouldn't ahve worked with a conventional soul caliubur...

so devs were met with the decision to either make a conventional soul calibur supporting the classic controller ( which every wii owner does not own ) that would look woefully outdated to its HD console counterparts or go a different route altogether and look outside the box ( what many gamers fans demand of devs ) for a way to structure soul calibur that allows the motion controls to work

i don't bash them for attempting something new but some people do, oddly enough those same people criticise the lack of originality in games today

That would have worked with Soul Calibur too and it wouldn't have required much work. They just needed to think up some Wiimote/Nunchuk setup to support the main controller and the majority of people would have played it with Classic or Gamecube controllers anyway, just like it was with SSBB. And seeing that SSBB sold 10 million copies, there were more than enough optional controllers out there to make a proper Soul Calibur game viable.

You make it sound like a follow up to a millionselling Gamecube game would be hard to pull off on the Wii or not a sound business decision while in fact the exact opposite is the case. You are completely siding with developer ignorance here, but didn't you say once upon a time that you appreciate gaming on the whole? You don't sound like a gamer here, but rather like a corporate shill.


i don't see anything wrong with devs trying out something new if someone wanted classic soul calibur theres the HD twins if they wanted something new theres the wii version

wrong quote