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

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

oniyide on 08 January 2013
Aielyn said:
noname2200 said:
Aielyn said:

so.

The only part of Activision that truly cared about the Wii was Treyarch (and maybe, MAYBE, Vicarious Visions)

Why the qualifier re: VV?

Because they haven't been consistent enough to make the call, and most of their Wii games were cases where they were the secondary developer assigned the Wii version. Oh, and because Vicarious Visions are primarily a handheld game developer - they specialised in GBA in Gen 6, and in DS in Gen 7.

Treyarch made it a point to make every one of their games for the Wii (Wii U in the case of BO2) as well as the 360 and PS3, despite Activision clearly not giving two hoots about it, and even made it a point to port over the games by Infinity Ward - in other words, Treyarch released more games for the Wii than they did for PS3 or 360. And it was all done in-studio - they didn't hand it to some secondary studio at any point.

Thats just it though, for the longest time Treyarch WAS the secondary studio. Thats why the HAD to port the games to Wii, cause Acti didnt want to wast the time of their Golden boys (IW) Lets not act that Treyarch is doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts its a business, when Acti tells them jump they say how high. They didnt have anywhere near the prestige and popularity of IW. COD3 was horrid, WaW was better still no where near as popular as 4, they didnt break big till Black Ops, so they made two popular games versus IW's four. NOW they are big boys, but i still think they are being told to make a wii game. I read an article stating that they really didnt put much time in the Wii version and LOL at it being just as good. DLC alone makes this not true.



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 08 January 2013
Kasz216 said:

I still think Nintendo should make a shooter though.   Call it "Return to Castle Bowser" make it a downloadable game in the vein of an oldschool shooter.  Would be good fun.  Fire Flowers, Hamer Bro Hammers, shells etc.

Bringing back the shareware!



oniyide on 08 January 2013
Aielyn said:
oniyide said:
oh please, you just said in this very thread that you have no interest in the game whatsoever. Forget already? Why speak for other theoritical people? The irony is that you bought Ninja Gaiden 3 for Wii U and it did TERRIBLE, probably one of the lowest selling ones in the library so far.

Note that Ninja Gaiden 3's Japanese sales aren't currently being tracked by VGChartz, but did chart according to MediaCreate. Also, US data may be incomplete, as no data before week 4 is listed... but it's possible that the week 4 data includes data from weeks 1-3 (the release date for the game had to be fixed, and sometimes that results in all previous data being lumped into the first week of update). Oddly, there's European data, despite the game not having released in Europe yet.

Far enough, i still stand by that it didnt do too well, its a niche series and a port that is late for a game that wasnt well received in the first place.



oniyide on 08 January 2013
sethnintendo said:
oniyide said:
Cobretti2 said:
noname2200 said:
Cobretti2 said:
Clearly Nintendo is not offering any competition in the FPS genre atm so now the reason is "business decision" coincidentally after we herd what happened with Origin all those months ago now.

It is the first-party's sole responsibility to nurture a healthy environment and blaze a trail for third-parties to thrive on their systems.


Thanks for ignoring my first line.

 

I would almost argue based on the current performance of only 1million units each on PS3 and 360, a better business decision would be to make the franchise Wii U exclusive as their is no competition for the game there unlike on the hd twins which have halo, killzone, COD, resistance etc.. If they released the full trilogy it could grow with Nintendo's help. Sureit is a huge risk but a risk worth taking. If it doesnt grow then nothing lost as they would simply port C3 to the other systems.

You mean like how they did for Conduit?? Yeah that worked out fantastic. Its Crysis the sequel was released on systems that never got the first one so thats one reason why it didnt do too well. And a mil plus on each? not even counting PC sales? Not too bad.

Bring up the Conduit and forget about GoldenEye.

2 GoldenEye 007 (2010) Wii 2010 Action Activision 0.79 0.65 0.13 0.18 1.75
3 Goldeneye 007: Reloaded PS3 2011 Shooter Activision 0.27 0.25 0.00 0.11 0.63
4 Goldeneye 007: Reloaded X360 2011 Shooter Activision 0.21 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.41


Didnt forget its a flawed logic, you ignore that it was a year late port of a game. And it was more expensive and less ads. But considering it did a mil on the HDS and probably cost them little to port and they were charging near full price the entire(still like 30*40) bet they made money. Not to mention thats lets be real as a guy who has had GE since day 1 it is a good FPS...for WII. Put that game next to the big boys on PS360/PC down to just ok.

How about getting some games that released DAY and DATE for all 3 systems?? Or at least compare some EXCLUSIVE Wii FPSs to either HD one?

And i brought up Conduit cause that was supposed to be the saving grace and it didnt meet anyone's even modest expectations. less said about the sequel the better.



Aielyn on 08 January 2013
oniyide said:
Thats just it though, for the longest time Treyarch WAS the secondary studio. Thats why the HAD to port the games to Wii, cause Acti didnt want to wast the time of their Golden boys (IW) Lets not act that Treyarch is doing anything out of the goodness of their hearts its a business, when Acti tells them jump they say how high. They didnt have anywhere near the prestige and popularity of IW. COD3 was horrid, WaW was better still no where near as popular as 4, they didnt break big till Black Ops, so they made two popular games versus IW's four. NOW they are big boys, but i still think they are being told to make a wii game. I read an article stating that they really didnt put much time in the Wii version and LOL at it being just as good. DLC alone makes this not true.

They were the secondary studio with regards to what? The only time that they acted as a secondary studio was when they ported IW's MW games to the Wii. In all other cases, they made their own games (since they started working on CoD, that is - I make no claims regarding the situation prior to 2005). And it's worth noting that Treyarch's Wii development group grew over time - as I understand it, with CoD 3, they had something like two guys working on it.

Are you suggesting that Activision didn't want to tell Infinity Ward to make Wii versions of their games, but were fine with telling Treyarch that they had to? It just doesn't make sense. Note that I'm not talking about the Modern Warfare ports, I'm talking about the original versions.

Also note that I said nothing about "goodness of their hearts" - when I said "care", I meant it in the sense of "considered to be relevant", not "were emotionally attached". As in, I cared about who was elected president of the US, despite being an Australian. It wasn't an emotional concern, it was practical. Treyarch clearly considered the Wii a relevant console for which development would result in profit, and the level of profit was clearly enough to convince them to continue to do so.

And do you really believe that Activision instructed Treyarch to make CoD games for the Wii? If it were true, Activision would also have advertised the Wii versions, they would have at least mentioned the Wii versions in their PR releases. The lack of such attention from Activision strongly implies that Treyarch was the origin of the decision to support the Wii.



Around the Network
hsrob on 08 January 2013
KylieDog said:
hsrob said:
Yet another reason not to support EA.


If you own a WiiU, that isn't much of threat.  "Not releasing your games on my platform, then I will not buy them!"

I have three other platforms that I can ignore them on as well:)  Furthermore gimped, yet full price, FIFA and Madden have done nothing to improve my feelings towards them as of late.

I do like some of their games but i despise their approach to business.



Euphoria14 on 08 January 2013
Kasz216 said:

I don't think that is what established the shooter base though.   I think the shooter base is on Sony platforms, because people who like shooters like Sony.   Afterall, that doesn't explain why various other third party created bases exist where they do.

Why is 360 the Madden Box.... Microsoft never created a Sports base.

With Nintendo it was just a lack of proper timing.   

Had Nintendo did exactly what they did in the PS1 era (outside being douches who scared off third parties) and they got PS1 level support.  I'd be positive the Wii U would have an already established shooter base that rivals Sony's shooter base today.

Furthermore, I would guess that even if Nintendo made the most revlutionary shooter since Wolfenstein... it still wouldn't matter.

Videogame markets are weird in that it seems like brand assosiation is EXTREMELY important.

 

There is of course plenty of value to go "counter stream" with a product to appeal to Wii U shooter fans... but Crysis really isn't that game.  

 

I still think Nintendo should make a shooter though.   Call it "Return to Castle Bowser" make it a downloadable game in the vein of an oldschool shooter.  Would be good fun.  Fire Flowers, Hamer Bro Hammers, shells etc.

Didn't Miyamoto say once that he wanted to make a first person shooter?

They should let him.



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!

Kasz216 on 08 January 2013
Euphoria14 said:
Kasz216 said:

I don't think that is what established the shooter base though.   I think the shooter base is on Sony platforms, because people who like shooters like Sony.   Afterall, that doesn't explain why various other third party created bases exist where they do.

Why is 360 the Madden Box.... Microsoft never created a Sports base.

With Nintendo it was just a lack of proper timing.   

Had Nintendo did exactly what they did in the PS1 era (outside being douches who scared off third parties) and they got PS1 level support.  I'd be positive the Wii U would have an already established shooter base that rivals Sony's shooter base today.

Furthermore, I would guess that even if Nintendo made the most revlutionary shooter since Wolfenstein... it still wouldn't matter.

Videogame markets are weird in that it seems like brand assosiation is EXTREMELY important.

 

There is of course plenty of value to go "counter stream" with a product to appeal to Wii U shooter fans... but Crysis really isn't that game.  

 

I still think Nintendo should make a shooter though.   Call it "Return to Castle Bowser" make it a downloadable game in the vein of an oldschool shooter.  Would be good fun.  Fire Flowers, Hamer Bro Hammers, shells etc.

Didn't Miyamoto say once that he wanted to make a first person shooter?

They should let him.

Sort of.   He said he liked the possibilties that first person gaming provides.

I imagine it would be far more Portal then it would Crysis 2.

 

"Rather than necessarily the question of 'What kind of weapon do I have?' ... I think that the structure of a first-person shooter is something that's very interesting," he says. "Having that 3D space that in theory you are in and being able to look around and explore that-particularly being able to do that in conjunction with another person-is very interesting."



Euphoria14 on 08 January 2013
Kasz216 said:
Euphoria14 said:

Didn't Miyamoto say once that he wanted to make a first person shooter?

They should let him.

Sort of.   He said he liked the possibilties that first person gaming provides.

I imagine it would be far more Portal then it would Crysis 2.

 

"Rather than necessarily the question of 'What kind of weapon do I have?' ... I think that the structure of a first-person shooter is something that's very interesting," he says. "Having that 3D space that in theory you are in and being able to look around and explore that-particularly being able to do that in conjunction with another person-is very interesting."

So he wan't to do a first-person perspective game. They should definitely let him then.

I would like to see a Nintendo styled Skyrim.



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!

Kasz216 on 08 January 2013
Euphoria14 said:
Kasz216 said:
Euphoria14 said:

Didn't Miyamoto say once that he wanted to make a first person shooter?

They should let him.

Sort of.   He said he liked the possibilties that first person gaming provides.

I imagine it would be far more Portal then it would Crysis 2.

 

"Rather than necessarily the question of 'What kind of weapon do I have?' ... I think that the structure of a first-person shooter is something that's very interesting," he says. "Having that 3D space that in theory you are in and being able to look around and explore that-particularly being able to do that in conjunction with another person-is very interesting."

So he wan't to do a first-person perspective game. They should definitely let him then.

I would like to see a Nintendo styled Skyrim.


Well he says he'd like to, but he doesn't have the time.  I feel like you could ask him about pretty much any genre and he'd want to do it.