Aielyn said:
Scisca said:
BS.
Check how outstanding the sales of AC3 and CoD:BlOps2 are on Wii U. Why would EA care to waste money and working power on something like that? They have no interest in investing money in the extremely unlikely success of 3rd party games on Wii U. The burden is on Nintendo, they have to PAY developers to get games. They have to shell out that cash they've earned last gen, when they went after the casual gamers and decimated the fanbase interested in regular core 3rd party games. If they don't do that - screw them. Why should other companies waste their hard earned money? So that a handful of Nintendo fanboys can say "we have all games Sony and MS systems have" and don't buy them anyway? A doesn't need to do it. They would be stupid to do it. The current sales of core 3rd party games are so abyssmal, that there really is no guarantee that they would get back the costs of the port, so what do you want from them? This is about business, not about what is fair and ok in your opinion.
You say that "lack of interest comes from lack of support, not the other way around" and I say - cool, you're right. But it's Nintendo's business to create that. Just like Sony has been struggling with PS3 in the past and is struggling with Vita right now. Nintendo has to take the financial risk if the want to recreate the core fanbase. EA is fine with MS and Sony platforms, so is everyone else. Nintendo wants a piece of this pie? They have to risk their money, not other companies' money.
I mean, c'mon. Porting Crysis to Vita would make more sense financially than a port to Wii U.
To me this is a clear signal. EA wanted to be sure they get their share of money out of it and told Nintendo to pay them for the port. Nintendo refused, so EA showed them the door.
|
First of all, there's no way that they only just made the decision - with the game set for release in just a couple of months, you can be confident that it had to be stopped earlier than the Wii U launch. Therefore, the argument that BO2 and AC3 sales are in any way relevant is absurd on one count.
Second of all, AC3 is a late port and BO2 is predominantly played by people who play casually. Furthermore, BO2 is the second-best-selling third-party title on the Wii U (except possibly a few Japanese titles that are lacking VGChartz data), and isn't selling much worse than Call of Duties at previous system launches. Or are we meant to compare sales on the Wii U at launch to sales on a system that has an install base of over 70 million? So the argument that BO2 and AC3 sales are meaningful for the decision is absurd on another count.
Third of all, how are they meant to make a profit on the Wii U if they don't support it first? This is just a propagation of the same ludicrous argument put forward by third parties to justify not putting various games on the Wii - the idea that there was no proof that there was a market for the game. The game makes the market, the market doesn't make the game. You have to put the game on the system to create the market for the game.
And no, the burden is NOT on Nintendo. Nintendo's job is to create a living ecosystem. It's EA's job to create its market within that ecosystem.
By the way, Nintendo has tried creating ecosystems for various genres, specifically, by releasing games within that genre, before. Third parties responded by saying "you can't compete with Nintendo, so we're not going to make a game of that genre".
So here's my challenge to you: explain how Nintendo is meant to get out of this little circle - if Nintendo doesn't release a game of that type on the system, it's "there's no market on the Wii U for our game". If Nintendo does release a game of that type on the system, it's "what, we're meant to compete against Nintendo?" - what's the escape for this setup? What can Nintendo do to convince these third parties to release games on the system? And don't say "money", because you've just said that EA are telling Nintendo that they have to pay JUST TO HAVE A MULTIPLATFORM GAME ON THE SYSTEM. Not an exclusive, a multiplatform game. How does this make any sense, whatsoever?
Seriously, explain it to me.
|
This is really quite simple, you just have to honestly try to understand.
A) They may have made this decision recently, a port doesn't take that much time to be made. I can easily see them waiting for the AC3 and CoD results before giving this game the green light.
B) CoD is second best selling. Cool. Do you think 3rd parties are interested in jerking off to the notion of having "the second best selling game on Wii U", when it's generating losses? Don't think so. And you don't have to compare the sales to PS360, though that is the competition. You have to look at the numbers themselves and ask yourself if they justify an investment. Would you invest your private money in this game when AC3 sells 160k? I know I wouldn't.
Read this one carefully:
THE BURDEN IS ON NINTENDO. EAs job is to earn money, not to create any market. They don't care if Nintendos console sells or not. They earn the money on Sony and MS right now, but if their next consoles turn out to suck and won't sell, they will wave them goodbye and go to PC, Android, iOS or whatever else there is that generates money. If Nintendo wants to have a core market they have to create it.
How is Nintendo supposed to solve it? Easy. Release core games that aren't childish anymore and make them big AND pay 3rd parties to get their games. They got Bayo 2 - cause they paid for it! And yes, Nintendo right now is in a place where they have to pay for multiplatform games. Sad but true. They put themselves there and now they have to dig themselves out of this. MS pays for some exlusive time for CoD. Sony pays for exclusive DLCs for AC. Nintendo has to pay to get games and pay extra to get additional content and good use of their gamepad. This is where they are, whether you like it or not. They put themselves here on their own, it was them who butchered the core market with the Wii and now they have to shell back the money they owned by ignoring the core gamers.
Think about this. 160k pople bought ACIII on Wii U. But that's not 160k more games sold! Quite a bunch of these people bought the game just to have a good game to play on their new console they are excited about, but would get it on PS360, if it wasn't released on Wii U. This shows the real size of the Wii U core market. That is why 3rd parties don't care and shouldn't care. There is next to no money for them here. If Nintendo wants to change it, the have to pay. Read the article. This is a business decision. Nintendo has to make releasing games on Wii U good business. Sales themselves don't justify it, so they have to do something about it and do it fast.
Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!
My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/
My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.
Currently Online 
