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

Forums - Nintendo - 'Crysis 3' not coming to Wii U due to lack of "business drive"

kitler53 on 07 January 2013
Mr Khan said:
Mazty said:
Mr Khan said:
Mazty said:
Mr Khan said:
mai said:

Could anybody translate "lack of business drive" from business English to regular English?

EA's still sad and butthurt that Nintendo didn't pay them to use Origin as the basis for Wii U's online.


Companies don't get "butthurt". It's not as if this is the only multiplatform not to be coming to the Wii U. 

Read some of KungKras' posts. EA has a history of bullying and generally being a bunch of brats.

Is this the only multiplatform not to be ported to the Wii U? No, therefore why are people trying to dismiss this as EA having an attitude problem which is rediculous for a company of such a size which has stockholders. 
Companies may try to influence other companies decisions, but companies are not a bunch of schoolyard bullies looking to ruin another persons day for the hell of it. 

Because a lot of Western third parties are as short-sighted as infants, as proven by their delightful financial track records. Companies like Take Two and EA are either malicious, incompetent, or a healthy mixture of both. Certainly not smart or successful businesses.

but publishing games merely out of gratitude for the high risk environment nintedo works in, that's a smart business direction...

i get you are angry.  but seriously.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 07 January 2013
Mazty said:
Mr Khan said:
Mazty said:

Is this the only multiplatform not to be ported to the Wii U? No, therefore why are people trying to dismiss this as EA having an attitude problem which is rediculous for a company of such a size which has stockholders. 
Companies may try to influence other companies decisions, but companies are not a bunch of schoolyard bullies looking to ruin another persons day for the hell of it. 

Because a lot of Western third parties are as short-sighted as infants, as proven by their delightful financial track records. Companies like Take Two and EA are either malicious, incompetent, or a healthy mixture of both. Certainly not smart or successful businesses.

Companies are not malicious. Greedy? Yes. Malicious? Where's the profit in that? Saying a company is malicious is rediculously humanising the issue. As I said above, with the wii u not even being 2% of the market and with it showing very little improvement over the 360 and PS3 (technically) then paying to have a team learn how to dev for the wii u and port the game just isn't going to be profitable. 

If it's not worth learning now, it will never be worth learning, which means third parties will once again be down a "viable" platform, and "forced" to hash it out in a shrunken, super-competitive space.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan on 07 January 2013
kitler53 said:
Mr Khan said:
Mazty said:

Is this the only multiplatform not to be ported to the Wii U? No, therefore why are people trying to dismiss this as EA having an attitude problem which is rediculous for a company of such a size which has stockholders. 
Companies may try to influence other companies decisions, but companies are not a bunch of schoolyard bullies looking to ruin another persons day for the hell of it. 

Because a lot of Western third parties are as short-sighted as infants, as proven by their delightful financial track records. Companies like Take Two and EA are either malicious, incompetent, or a healthy mixture of both. Certainly not smart or successful businesses.

but publishing games merely out of gratitude for the high risk environment nintedo works in, that's a smart business direction...

i get you are angry.  but seriously.

I'm not saying they should publish games out of gratitude, i'm saying that third parties in general need the big 3 much more than the big 3 need third parties, and that they shouldn't act like they have any leverage.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan on 07 January 2013
Train wreck said:
Mr Khan said:
Mazty said:
Mr Khan said:
Mazty said:
Mr Khan said:
mai said:

Could anybody translate "lack of business drive" from business English to regular English?

EA's still sad and butthurt that Nintendo didn't pay them to use Origin as the basis for Wii U's online.


Companies don't get "butthurt". It's not as if this is the only multiplatform not to be coming to the Wii U. 

Read some of KungKras' posts. EA has a history of bullying and generally being a bunch of brats.

Is this the only multiplatform not to be ported to the Wii U? No, therefore why are people trying to dismiss this as EA having an attitude problem which is rediculous for a company of such a size which has stockholders. 
Companies may try to influence other companies decisions, but companies are not a bunch of schoolyard bullies looking to ruin another persons day for the hell of it. 

Because a lot of Western third parties are as short-sighted as infants, as proven by their delightful financial track records. Companies like Take Two and EA are either malicious, incompetent, or a healthy mixture of both. Certainly not smart or successful businesses.

I dont see how a company (companies) that created GTA, Madden, the sims (what 120 million+ sold) are not smart or successful companies.  I hope the ban continues because I continually say that its people like you that make it so easy for them to do it.  While you complain about their lack of business success, I will be enjoying Grand theft auto 5.

Put the games that i like where i am, and i will buy them. I'm not going to buy all the third party games just because to "support the third parties," but i did, for instance, buy Ninja Gaiden 3 and Arkham City.

GTA i've never liked, so it doesn't really bother me. It only bothers me on principle.

Indeed, the success of EA's games proves their underlying incompetence, because they can't seem to turn that into profits.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

MoHasanie on 07 January 2013

Its not really a loss to WiiU, cause Crysis 2 was a bad game, so Crysis 3 will probably suck as well.



    

NNID: FrequentFlyer54

Around the Network
KHlover on 07 January 2013
Mazty said:
Aielyn said:
Mazty said:
Companies aren't people; they don't get "mad" at one another. One thing drives companies - money. Simply put, there are not enough users of the Wii U to warrant making a port.

I've said it before, but some seem to have trouble comprehending it...

A company that looks at the current install base and judges their decisions based purely on that is backwards-thinking and on their way to bankruptcy. Companies must look at future potential, competition, and potential fanbase. Games sell on systems because developers and publishers develop fanbases on those systems. It is not enough to just throw a game at a system with a high install base, you have to make people want your games on the system. And the argument of "there's no interest in the game on that system" is just as ludicrous, because lack of interest comes from lack of support, not the other way around.

In short, if any company thinks the way you do, then they're going to get decimated by the next generation.

Meanwhile, we know they were already working on the port, that porting games to Wii U is relatively cheap, and that there aren't that many shooting games on the Wii U, while the PS3 and 360 have a glut of them to compete against. EA have proven time and again that they don't actually understand gaming, and that's why the only way they ever make a profit is by buying out successful developers... who, after a few years, end up becoming crap, at which point EA has to buy out more developers. Fortunate for Crytek that they're just partners with EA, not owned by them.


That's rediculous. A company looks at a market of 140+ million consoles. The Wii U isn't even 2% of that market. It simply isn't profitable to make the exact same game for the Wii U as it is for the PS3 and 360. Also they probably realise that if someone wants Crysis 2, they already own either a PS3 or 360, and therefore developing for the Wii U isn't profitable. 

We've yet to see any future potential from the Wii U - where is it's PGR3? Until it truly defines itself as an 8th gen console and sets itself apart from the 360/PS3, it will be directly compared to the 360/PS3 in everyway - customers, potential, lifespan. 

 

freebs2 said:
Mazty said:
KHlover said:
EA is still mad at Nintendo? Way to go -_-


lolwut

Companies aren't people; they don't get "mad" at one another. One thing drives companies - money. Simply put, there are not enough users of the Wii U to warrant making a port. 

lolwut

I'd like to see if EA will ever decide to renounce porting a new game on Ps4/Xbox3 beacuse there aren't enough users on of them.

 

If the PS4/Nextbox show proper 8th gen potential, then actually we may see very little ports to them as publishers will realise that if someone has a nextbox, they probably already own a 360. This was not the case with the Xbox or GC due to much lower install bases, therefore it was quite reasonable to presume someone with a 360/PS3 may not actually have another console. 

 

 

KHlover said:
Mazty said:
KHlover said:
EA is still mad at Nintendo? Way to go -_-


lolwut

Companies aren't people; they don't get "mad" at one another. One thing drives companies - money. Simply put, there are not enough users of the Wii U to warrant making a port. 

If so, why does Google block GMaps on Windows Phone? Why does Samsung stop producing new chips for Apple? Companies are still led by people and thus CAN be mad at each other.

 

It's called market competition.....Google blocks a popular service in order to boost android sales. Samsung stops producing chips to increase Galaxy sales. This is basic economic competition and absolutely nothing to do with anger. 

 


Yeah, Apple suing Samsung over 1bn had nothing to do with it...



Some useful VGChartz tweaks

Member of the "An Unbiased Review" Database team

GameAnalyser on 07 January 2013

Why was this console released at this point by Nintendo? If the developers of COD BO, AC 3 focused on creating ports rather than an idea of 'nonsensical' business drive, gaming industry is only to benefit. Crytek is only losing their credibility and reputation with this move.



Chandler on 07 January 2013

I didn't know people care about Crysis. I'll be getting it for 5 bucks on my PC, like evey other oh so prestigous multiplat game. Thank you very much.



Ongoing bet with think-man: He wins if MH4 releases in any shape or form on PSV in 2013, I win if it doesn't.

KungKras on 07 January 2013
Train wreck said:
Mr Khan said:
Mazty said:
Mr Khan said:
Mazty said:
Mr Khan said:
mai said:

Could anybody translate "lack of business drive" from business English to regular English?

EA's still sad and butthurt that Nintendo didn't pay them to use Origin as the basis for Wii U's online.


Companies don't get "butthurt". It's not as if this is the only multiplatform not to be coming to the Wii U. 

Read some of KungKras' posts. EA has a history of bullying and generally being a bunch of brats.

Is this the only multiplatform not to be ported to the Wii U? No, therefore why are people trying to dismiss this as EA having an attitude problem which is rediculous for a company of such a size which has stockholders. 
Companies may try to influence other companies decisions, but companies are not a bunch of schoolyard bullies looking to ruin another persons day for the hell of it. 

Because a lot of Western third parties are as short-sighted as infants, as proven by their delightful financial track records. Companies like Take Two and EA are either malicious, incompetent, or a healthy mixture of both. Certainly not smart or successful businesses.

I dont see how a company (companies) that created GTA, Madden, the sims (what 120 million+ sold) are not smart or successful companies.  I hope the ban continues because I continually say that its people like you that make it so easy for them to do it.  While you complain about their lack of business success, I will be enjoying Grand theft auto 5.

It's rather easy to see actually. The devs make the good games, while the business suits make the poor business desicions. Also, if you look at many big businesses, many are ran into the gound by their CEOs who despite that demand massive bonuses, even though they fucked up their company. Just look at commodore with the Amiga ("We made the Amiga, they fucked it up"), or that Twinkies company whatever it was called.

The argument that companies always act rationally and/or optimally just doesn't hold up, it never did.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Mazty on 07 January 2013
Mr Khan said:

Mazty said:

Companies are not malicious. Greedy? Yes. Malicious? Where's the profit in that? Saying a company is malicious is rediculously humanising the issue. As I said above, with the wii u not even being 2% of the market and with it showing very little improvement over the 360 and PS3 (technically) then paying to have a team learn how to dev for the wii u and port the game just isn't going to be profitable. 

If it's not worth learning now, it will never be worth learning, which means third parties will once again be down a "viable" platform, and "forced" to hash it out in a shrunken, super-competitive space.

Yeah. Exactly. That's probably the literal calculation that these publishers have done, hence the lack of ports. It will only be a viable platform when it becomes a large percentage of the 8th generation, and so far a) it's yet to show itself as 8th gen and b) it's less then 2% of the 7th gen. If the rumours of PS4 and Nextbox dev kits are true, then these publishers probably know something that we don't.