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"

sethnintendo on 09 January 2013
wfz said:
I said it months ago, and I'll say it again: if you bought a Wii U for anything other than Nintendo 1st party games and a few, rare third party gems, I'm deeply sorry. But hey, it's not worth your time arguing about the actions third parties make. They'll do what they'll do.

If you are a Nintendo fan you have already realized that you don't count on 3rd party companies.  You buy Nintendo hardware for Nintendo software.  Anything else is just icing on the cake.



Around the Network
oniyide on 09 January 2013
Aielyn said:
oniyide said:
LOL they did get Treyarch to do MW for Wii thats my whole point and surprise they were a secondary studio. 

We are going to have to agree to disagree. You have absolutely no proof that Treyarch was happy to make a Wii version of anything from the interviews ive seen from Treyarch they are indifferent at best. I didnt say that Acti didnt allow them to do it, Im saying IW didnt WANT to do it for whatever reason and they gave it to someone else. IE Treyarch

Treyarch is NOT a secondary studio. They don't make secondary versions of games. They make their own games.

A secondary studio is, for instance, n-Space, who made the DS version of Modern Warfare, or nStigate Games, who made the PSVita version of Black Ops 2. They are secondary studios because they're tasked with making the games for "lesser" platforms than the main ones. And by the way, n-Space's work on the DS versions of Modern Warfare 1 and 2 demonstrate that Activision had no problem with having a secondary studio make a version of IW's game... they just didn't feel like organising a Wii version.

As for Treyarch...

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/24/joystiq-interviews-mark-lamia-of-treyarch-and-call-of-duty-the-f/

Treyarch had dedicated Wii teams by the time of WaW. And by 2010, they were promising to blow people away with the quality of Black Ops:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/248983/cod-black-ops-wii-version-will-blow-you-away/

Also in 2010, Treyarch's head made the explicit statement that the studio was "committed" to the Wii:

http://www.vg247.com/2010/05/31/treyarch-remain-commited-to-wii/

And even in 2012, with no further Wii games coming from Treyarch, it still got positive mentions:

http://mp1st.com/2012/07/18/black-ops-ii-treyarch-dev-responds-to-xbox-360-favoritism-claims-from-ps3-camp/

There's plenty of evidence that Treyarch consider the Wii to be a worthy system, and that they care about it (again, I don't mean "care" in the emotional attachment sense).

I would argue that MW for Wii WAS a secondary version of the actual MW game, hell I would say the same thing about COD3 considering how crappy that turned out for Wii. Matter of fact the fact that they ported MW1 and 3 negates your argument since those are games they didnt originally make themselves.

I think you need to do just a bit more research, Nstigate did NOT make a BLOPS 2 version for Vita. It is an ORGINAL game. How are people not getting this by now. ANd honestly everything you've just posted sounds like PR speak from a company. Of course they are going to talk up and say nice things, to do otherwise would be suicide.



F0X on 09 January 2013
oniyide said:
Aielyn said:
oniyide said:
LOL they did get Treyarch to do MW for Wii thats my whole point and surprise they were a secondary studio. 

We are going to have to agree to disagree. You have absolutely no proof that Treyarch was happy to make a Wii version of anything from the interviews ive seen from Treyarch they are indifferent at best. I didnt say that Acti didnt allow them to do it, Im saying IW didnt WANT to do it for whatever reason and they gave it to someone else. IE Treyarch

Treyarch is NOT a secondary studio. They don't make secondary versions of games. They make their own games.

A secondary studio is, for instance, n-Space, who made the DS version of Modern Warfare, or nStigate Games, who made the PSVita version of Black Ops 2. They are secondary studios because they're tasked with making the games for "lesser" platforms than the main ones. And by the way, n-Space's work on the DS versions of Modern Warfare 1 and 2 demonstrate that Activision had no problem with having a secondary studio make a version of IW's game... they just didn't feel like organising a Wii version.

As for Treyarch...

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/24/joystiq-interviews-mark-lamia-of-treyarch-and-call-of-duty-the-f/

Treyarch had dedicated Wii teams by the time of WaW. And by 2010, they were promising to blow people away with the quality of Black Ops:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/248983/cod-black-ops-wii-version-will-blow-you-away/

Also in 2010, Treyarch's head made the explicit statement that the studio was "committed" to the Wii:

http://www.vg247.com/2010/05/31/treyarch-remain-commited-to-wii/

And even in 2012, with no further Wii games coming from Treyarch, it still got positive mentions:

http://mp1st.com/2012/07/18/black-ops-ii-treyarch-dev-responds-to-xbox-360-favoritism-claims-from-ps3-camp/

There's plenty of evidence that Treyarch consider the Wii to be a worthy system, and that they care about it (again, I don't mean "care" in the emotional attachment sense).

I would argue that MW for Wii WAS a secondary version of the actual MW game, hell I would say the same thing about COD3 considering how crappy that turned out for Wii. Matter of fact the fact that they ported MW1 and 3 negates your argument since those are games they didnt originally make themselves.

I think you need to do just a bit more research, Nstigate did NOT make a BLOPS 2 version for Vita. It is an ORGINAL game. How are people not getting this by now. ANd honestly everything you've just posted sounds like PR speak from a company. Of course they are going to talk up and say nice things, to do otherwise would be suicide.


I would say that Treyarch is not a secondary studio, but instead the team within Treyarch responsible for the ports is a secondary team within the developer.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

Aielyn on 09 January 2013
oniyide said:
I would argue that MW for Wii WAS a secondary version of the actual MW game, hell I would say the same thing about COD3 considering how crappy that turned out for Wii. Matter of fact the fact that they ported MW1 and 3 negates your argument since those are games they didnt originally make themselves.

I think you need to do just a bit more research, Nstigate did NOT make a BLOPS 2 version for Vita. It is an ORGINAL game. How are people not getting this by now. ANd honestly everything you've just posted sounds like PR speak from a company. Of course they are going to talk up and say nice things, to do otherwise would be suicide.

MW:Reflex and MW3 were a special case. But CoD3 was made by Treyarch, so Treyarch couldn't possibly have been the secondary studio for that one, as they were the primary studio. And yes, CoD3 on Wii turned out fairly weak... and still sold better than the PS3 version, and not much worse than the 360 version. And my whole point is that Treyarch made their own Wii versions of their games, and ramped UP their support for Wii, rather than ramping it down. They put increasing amounts of effort into their Wii versions, and it showed.

And yes, the handheld CoD games are always somewhat different from the console ones. But it was still the Black Ops 2 handheld game, and the whole point is that Treyarch didn't make that version, which was being sold as the handheld BO2.

Meanwhile, you say "of course they're going to say nice things"... except, you clearly haven't been paying much attention to the gaming media over the last generation. Studios routinely dismissed Wii versions of games, when they even made one. Many studios were openly hostile to Wii. And even when they weren't, there was a rather strong bias in their phrasing. Let me demonstrate - here's an interview with the makers of Medal of Honor: Heroes 2, for Wii and PSP:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/medal-of-honor-heroes-2-interview

Asked about their Zapper support...

"We are really excited about our new a new mode for casual gamers in Medal of Honor Heroes 2 for the Wii."
"We feel this will appeal to casual Wii consumers and..."

That's the most positive they got about the Wii, really. This is a typical attitude when developers do make a Wii version of their game. And note that this was a game that was Wii/PSP, not 360/PS3/Wii.

Treyarch haven't just been positive about their games, they've been positive about the Wii itself, in their interviews. There's emphasis on the fact that there are people in their studio that love the Wii. These things are not needed from a PR perspective - gamers just want to know that the game is good.

And by the way, "suicide" has been a common approach when it comes to Wii games. Just look at Activision's attitude towards the Wii versions of the CoD games. The Wii was lucky to even get a mention in press releases - indeed, check this out:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-sets-all-time-record-for-the-biggest-entertainment-launch-with-more-than-400-million-in-north-america-and-united-kingdom-sales-alone-133682883.html

That's a press release about Modern Warfare 3's first-day sales figures. And what does it say at the end of it?

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is rated "M" (Mature) by the ESRB for Blood and Gore, Drug Reference, Intense Violence and Strong Language and is available now for the Xbox 360® video game and entertainment system from Microsoft, PlayStation®3 computer entertainment system, and Windows® PC."

The only time Wii is even mentioned is at the bottom of the "about Activision" section, where it just mentions that Wii and Nintendo DS are trademarks of Nintendo. Anybody reading that press release would think that there was no Wii version at all. Their five-day sales press release similarly only mentioned Wii as being a trademark of Nintendo, no mention in the release itself. In fact, despite Treyarch working on the Wii version, Treyarch doesn't even get acknowledged as being one of the developers of Modern Warfare 3 - it's completely ignored. Activision pretends that there's no Wii version, essentially.

Still think Treyarch's attitude is just PR?



oniyide on 20 January 2013
F0X said:
oniyide said:
Aielyn said:
oniyide said:
LOL they did get Treyarch to do MW for Wii thats my whole point and surprise they were a secondary studio. 

We are going to have to agree to disagree. You have absolutely no proof that Treyarch was happy to make a Wii version of anything from the interviews ive seen from Treyarch they are indifferent at best. I didnt say that Acti didnt allow them to do it, Im saying IW didnt WANT to do it for whatever reason and they gave it to someone else. IE Treyarch

Treyarch is NOT a secondary studio. They don't make secondary versions of games. They make their own games.

A secondary studio is, for instance, n-Space, who made the DS version of Modern Warfare, or nStigate Games, who made the PSVita version of Black Ops 2. They are secondary studios because they're tasked with making the games for "lesser" platforms than the main ones. And by the way, n-Space's work on the DS versions of Modern Warfare 1 and 2 demonstrate that Activision had no problem with having a secondary studio make a version of IW's game... they just didn't feel like organising a Wii version.

As for Treyarch...

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/24/joystiq-interviews-mark-lamia-of-treyarch-and-call-of-duty-the-f/

Treyarch had dedicated Wii teams by the time of WaW. And by 2010, they were promising to blow people away with the quality of Black Ops:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/248983/cod-black-ops-wii-version-will-blow-you-away/

Also in 2010, Treyarch's head made the explicit statement that the studio was "committed" to the Wii:

http://www.vg247.com/2010/05/31/treyarch-remain-commited-to-wii/

And even in 2012, with no further Wii games coming from Treyarch, it still got positive mentions:

http://mp1st.com/2012/07/18/black-ops-ii-treyarch-dev-responds-to-xbox-360-favoritism-claims-from-ps3-camp/

There's plenty of evidence that Treyarch consider the Wii to be a worthy system, and that they care about it (again, I don't mean "care" in the emotional attachment sense).

I would argue that MW for Wii WAS a secondary version of the actual MW game, hell I would say the same thing about COD3 considering how crappy that turned out for Wii. Matter of fact the fact that they ported MW1 and 3 negates your argument since those are games they didnt originally make themselves.

I think you need to do just a bit more research, Nstigate did NOT make a BLOPS 2 version for Vita. It is an ORGINAL game. How are people not getting this by now. ANd honestly everything you've just posted sounds like PR speak from a company. Of course they are going to talk up and say nice things, to do otherwise would be suicide.


I would say that Treyarch is not a secondary studio, but instead the team within Treyarch responsible for the ports is a secondary team within the developer.

fair enough, i didnt think that Treyarch was that big, that makes more sense



Around the Network
oniyide on 20 January 2013
Aielyn said:
oniyide said:
I would argue that MW for Wii WAS a secondary version of the actual MW game, hell I would say the same thing about COD3 considering how crappy that turned out for Wii. Matter of fact the fact that they ported MW1 and 3 negates your argument since those are games they didnt originally make themselves.

I think you need to do just a bit more research, Nstigate did NOT make a BLOPS 2 version for Vita. It is an ORGINAL game. How are people not getting this by now. ANd honestly everything you've just posted sounds like PR speak from a company. Of course they are going to talk up and say nice things, to do otherwise would be suicide.

MW:Reflex and MW3 were a special case. But CoD3 was made by Treyarch, so Treyarch couldn't possibly have been the secondary studio for that one, as they were the primary studio. And yes, CoD3 on Wii turned out fairly weak... and still sold better than the PS3 version, and not much worse than the 360 version. And my whole point is that Treyarch made their own Wii versions of their games, and ramped UP their support for Wii, rather than ramping it down. They put increasing amounts of effort into their Wii versions, and it showed.

And yes, the handheld CoD games are always somewhat different from the console ones. But it was still the Black Ops 2 handheld game, and the whole point is that Treyarch didn't make that version, which was being sold as the handheld BO2.

Meanwhile, you say "of course they're going to say nice things"... except, you clearly haven't been paying much attention to the gaming media over the last generation. Studios routinely dismissed Wii versions of games, when they even made one. Many studios were openly hostile to Wii. And even when they weren't, there was a rather strong bias in their phrasing. Let me demonstrate - here's an interview with the makers of Medal of Honor: Heroes 2, for Wii and PSP:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/medal-of-honor-heroes-2-interview

Asked about their Zapper support...

"We are really excited about our new a new mode for casual gamers in Medal of Honor Heroes 2 for the Wii."
"We feel this will appeal to casual Wii consumers and..."

That's the most positive they got about the Wii, really. This is a typical attitude when developers do make a Wii version of their game. And note that this was a game that was Wii/PSP, not 360/PS3/Wii.

Treyarch haven't just been positive about their games, they've been positive about the Wii itself, in their interviews. There's emphasis on the fact that there are people in their studio that love the Wii. These things are not needed from a PR perspective - gamers just want to know that the game is good.

And by the way, "suicide" has been a common approach when it comes to Wii games. Just look at Activision's attitude towards the Wii versions of the CoD games. The Wii was lucky to even get a mention in press releases - indeed, check this out:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-sets-all-time-record-for-the-biggest-entertainment-launch-with-more-than-400-million-in-north-america-and-united-kingdom-sales-alone-133682883.html

That's a press release about Modern Warfare 3's first-day sales figures. And what does it say at the end of it?

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is rated "M" (Mature) by the ESRB for Blood and Gore, Drug Reference, Intense Violence and Strong Language and is available now for the Xbox 360® video game and entertainment system from Microsoft, PlayStation®3 computer entertainment system, and Windows® PC."

The only time Wii is even mentioned is at the bottom of the "about Activision" section, where it just mentions that Wii and Nintendo DS are trademarks of Nintendo. Anybody reading that press release would think that there was no Wii version at all. Their five-day sales press release similarly only mentioned Wii as being a trademark of Nintendo, no mention in the release itself. In fact, despite Treyarch working on the Wii version, Treyarch doesn't even get acknowledged as being one of the developers of Modern Warfare 3 - it's completely ignored. Activision pretends that there's no Wii version, essentially.

Still think Treyarch's attitude is just PR?

yup, actions speak much louder than words, where is COD elite for Wii, where is ANY of the DLC for COD games on Wii? Why do the games STILL run so poorly to this day, where is the constant updates for the game that the HD versions receive? Either they dont really care and are doing the bare minimum or the WIi just cant really support those things i just mentioned, its one or the other. And if it is the latter then the hardware itself sucks.



animegaming on 20 January 2013

it's EA no console should have their support



ps3-sales! on 20 January 2013

This doesn't affect me since I only own a Ps3, but what a stupid reason. Obviously the Wii U can run Crysis 3 so why not??? How selfish of Nintendo, Crytek and EA to make the Wii U gamers suffer because they couldn't work out a deal.
I would've preferred the reason for no Crysis 3 on the Wii U being that Crytek was too late into development or just didn't want to port it.



Currently own:

 

  • Ps4

 

Currently playing: Witcher 3, Walking Dead S1/2, GTA5, Dying Light, Tomb Raider Remaster, MGS Ground Zeros

animegaming on 20 January 2013
ps3-sales! said:
This doesn't affect me since I only own a Ps3, but what a stupid reason. Obviously the Wii U can run Crysis 3 so why not??? How selfish of Nintendo, Crytek and EA to make the Wii U gamers suffer because they couldn't work out a deal.
I would've preferred the reason for no Crysis 3 on the Wii U being that Crytek was too late into development or just didn't want to port it.


their is a rumor going around that EA wanted origin to be the only download service on the wii u but nintendo wouldn't let them so cause of this EA will not release much games on the wii u and if they do it will be a half ass port but keep in mind this is just a rumor



oniyide on 20 January 2013
animegaming said:
ps3-sales! said:
This doesn't affect me since I only own a Ps3, but what a stupid reason. Obviously the Wii U can run Crysis 3 so why not??? How selfish of Nintendo, Crytek and EA to make the Wii U gamers suffer because they couldn't work out a deal.
I would've preferred the reason for no Crysis 3 on the Wii U being that Crytek was too late into development or just didn't want to port it.


their is a rumor going around that EA wanted origin to be the only download service on the wii u but nintendo wouldn't let them so cause of this EA will not release much games on the wii u and if they do it will be a half ass port but keep in mind this is just a rumor


strange rumor considering, NFS is being released on Wii U very soon.