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"

VGKing on 07 January 2013

PS3/360 versions of the game won't sell that well. They'll probably end up selling worse than Cryisis 2 did and #2 didn't exactly light up the charts.

1 Crysis 2 X360 2011 Shooter Electronic Arts 0.60 0.44 0.02 0.13 1.19
2 Crysis 2 PS3 2011 Shooter Electronic Arts 0.36 0.48 0.06 0.20 1.10

Adding a Wii U version to the mix doensn't make sense from a business perspective. Besides isn't Crytek moving to Free-To-Play? They're probably rushing to get Crysis 3 out there. They just can't compete with the Activisions and EAs.



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

PS3/360 versions of the game won't sell that well. They'll probably end up selling worse than Cryisis 2 did and #2 didn't exactly light up the charts.

1 Crysis 2 X360 2011 Shooter Electronic Arts 0.60 0.44 0.02 0.13 1.19
2 Crysis 2 PS3 2011 Shooter Electronic Arts 0.36 0.48 0.06 0.20 1.10

Adding a Wii U version to the mix doensn't make sense from a business perspective. Besides isn't Crytek moving to Free-To-Play? They're probably rushing to get Crysis 3 out there. They just can't compete with the Activisions and EAs.

Well EA is pretty heavily promoting it via GameStop, so they have some confidence in its ability to sell on the designated platforms.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

flagstaad on 07 January 2013
Aielyn said:

Again, I point to Ubisoft, Sega, and Warner Bros. I point to Capcom with Monster Hunter, Square Enix with Dragon Quest, Namco Bandai with Tekken (note that not a single Tekken game came to the Wii). I point to Bayonetta 2, and to Ninja Gaiden 3. Activision and EA are the only ones that don't seem to at least be supporting the Wii U with some big titles.

And Ubisoft with ZombiU laughs in your face, by the way.

I think Activision is doing a great job of supporting the console, they had CoD BO2 ready for launch, they had Skylanders, 007 Legends, Wipeout 3, a port of Transformers Prime, and are working on a port of Amazin Spiderman. Yes they don't have a lot of great games out there, but almost everything they put on the other consoles they also made or ported to the Wii U.

Activision was one of the best supporters of the Wii and I think they will continue with the Wii U.



Mr Khan on 07 January 2013
flagstaad said:
Aielyn said:

Again, I point to Ubisoft, Sega, and Warner Bros. I point to Capcom with Monster Hunter, Square Enix with Dragon Quest, Namco Bandai with Tekken (note that not a single Tekken game came to the Wii). I point to Bayonetta 2, and to Ninja Gaiden 3. Activision and EA are the only ones that don't seem to at least be supporting the Wii U with some big titles.

And Ubisoft with ZombiU laughs in your face, by the way.

I think Activision is doing a great job of supporting the console, they had CoD BO2 ready for launch, they had Skylanders, 007 Legends, Wipeout 3, a port of Transformers Prime, and are working on a port of Amazin Spiderman. Yes they don't have a lot of great games out there, but almost everything they put on the other consoles they also made or ported to the Wii U.

Activision was one of the best supporters of the Wii and I think they will continue with the Wii U.

Agree. They may not be the most creative bunch, but they are more or less the only third party who is fair in their work.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Euphoria14 on 07 January 2013
Mr Khan said:
Euphoria14 said:
Mr Khan said:
Euphoria14 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

So we've established that everyone has low expectations for third parties. Good.


I never said that.

You said that third parties can't be responsible for building a market. Ergo, third parties aren't responsible for leadership or outside-the-box thinking. Thus, low expectations.

Building a shooter market.

Nintendo built a fitness market and 3rd parties followed. Nintendo built a party games market and 3rd parties followed. Nintendo  built a platformers market, 3rd parties followed.

Nintendo doesn't seem to want to build a 1st person or 3rd person market, so why would 3rd parties do it for them? Especially if they have enough of a market to work with already on PS3, 360 and PC?

Right. Saying that third parties shouldn't be expected to build a market is implying that they can't build one.

I guess your also implying that Nintendo can't build a shooter base either.

So there we go. If Nintendo can't, or better yet don't even care to try, then why if you owned a company would you lay out all the money and manpower to do so, especially if you already have a more than healthy consumer base to work with on PS3, 360 and PC?

They don't need the WiiU to keep their shooters thriving. Nintendo however needs them to grow or keep a shooter base thriving, so it is Nintendo's job to lure them to their platform, whether it be through funding development, paying for all marketting costs or building those games themselves.

 

As I said before. They don't owe Nintendo anything.

 

That's how it works. You want something? Then put in some effort in order to get it.



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

Around the Network
oniyide on 07 January 2013

THe funny thing is all these people whining would not have bought the game on Wii U anyway. Crysis doesnt need Wii U and Wii u dont need Crysis. Simple



Mr Khan on 07 January 2013
oniyide said:
THe funny thing is all these people whining would not have bought the game on Wii U anyway. Crysis doesnt need Wii U and Wii u dont need Crysis. Simple

Who's to say? I'm not a shooter fan, but other folks might be. There is a lot of intersection between the Nintendo and PC fandoms (largely because the two platforms are so far apart from one another in makeup)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

KHlover on 07 January 2013
Mazty said:
KHlover said:
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...


*facepalm*
Apple is the MAIN COMPETITOR TO SAMSUNG. Being able to screw your competition out of $1,000,000,000 seems a worthwhile move. Companies don't get moody - they are not humans. Why on earth are people humanising companies?

What a coincidence this happended right after Apple won against Samsung in the US. Again, this has nothing to do with "humanizing" companies. But you don't seem to understand that certain events occuring between to companies WILL lead to drastic actions and humans ARE the ones taking the actions. And if you manage to anger the management directing the course of the company you CAN get a company to get mad at you, since the main actions are taken by the management. If these actions utterly fail the shareholders might want the management removed, but the management still took the decision. 



Some useful VGChartz tweaks

Member of the "An Unbiased Review" Database team

Mazty on 07 January 2013
KHlover said:

What a coincidence this happended right after Apple won against Samsung in the US. Again, this has nothing to do with "humanizing" companies. But you don't seem to understand that certain events occuring between to companies WILL lead to drastic actions and humans ARE the ones taking the actions. And if you manage to anger the management directing the course of the company you CAN get a company to get mad at you, since the main actions are taken by the management. If these actions utterly fail the shareholders might want the management removed, but the management still took the decision. 


If you think companies get mad I'm going to guess you've never had to deal with actual management of a company. 

The legal teams in Apple and Samsung were out for each others blood (read: money), however samsung was still making the screens for the ipad. Go figure. If you think boards of directors are huffy men taking pop shots at each other over ego issues, I can assure you that couldn't be further from reality. 



kain_kusanagi on 07 January 2013
Aielyn said:
Sounds to me like something equivalent to that Operation Rainfall thing needs to be started, targeted at EA.


Operation Rainfall had zero affect on anything. Nintendo was going to release what it released regardless of a few letters in their inbox.