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"

kitler53 on 07 January 2013
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.

lol, wut?   because google makes this little thing called android and google makes more money when people buy that over a windows phone.  why would they give away one of google's best competitive advantages?  google is hoping to slow or destroy window's phone.  if that doens't work, google's policy will change.



Around the Network
KungKras on 07 January 2013
bananaking21 said:
z101 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. 


It is naive to think that company decisions only based on facts and "where the money is". They are made by people. And people could be huffish or angry.

Fact is that EA wanted Nintendo to make Origin the only Wii U shop system. But Nintendo refused. Some people at EA are surely mad about Nintendo. 

you really know nothing about how companies function dont you?

But that is exactly how they funtion. Remember Trip Hawkins and the NES, or when they tried to bully Sega into only allowing them to make sports games for the Dreamcast?



I LOVE ICELAND!

kitler53 on 07 January 2013
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.

i mostly agree with you here but to me the key distinction is it is the platform owner (nintendo, ms, sony) that has the primary responsibility to cultivate and develop a userbase. 

no one was making casual appropriate fare for the ps360 early on.  but then MS spent a billion or whatever dollars creating and hyping kinect to which the third party support (dancing games and such) followed.  sony half assed move and no one flinch.  success will compound over time and the presence of third parties will inspire more third parties but it is first and foremost the platform owners responsibility to attract a fanbases.  third parties have too many options to give a fuck (or a dime) to make any one (or all) of the big three successful.



Areym on 07 January 2013
Godchild1020 said:
I don't understand why it's not coming, there are so many other EA titles coming to the console. Even if Crysis 3 came later, it would be able to show case the real power of the system and show those naysayers that is more than capable to handle Crysis 3, but better than the seventh generation consoles. That is if it is optimized right and ported with the gamepad in mind.


Not if it sales 5k copies and has 418 people online at once. I get the feeling many companies don't have high hopes for the WiiU.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

milkyjoe on 07 January 2013

Nobody follows Zelda.
Nobody follows Metroid.
Nobody follows Smash Bros (obviously not counting Sony...).
Nobody but Sega has really followed Mario Kart.
People try to follow Mario, but mostly fail.

Hundreds of Wii Sports/Fit clones.

The argument that 'they're just following Nintendo's lead' is selective at best.



VGChartz

Around the Network
Mr Khan on 07 January 2013
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.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

SxyxS on 07 January 2013

I'd like to see crysis on wiiu,just to see how it can compete with the ps360 versions but
Well,all 3rd party multiplattform games are selling bad on the wuui.
I guess none of them has passed the 100k (even on vita the sales are better)
Why wasting time and money if you know you won't sell 50000 units and will lose money.
I think EA knows that the pc version may end with a loss -they don't need another money wasting version.



Mr Khan on 07 January 2013
BasilZero said:

Again not a problem, if you want the game, buy it on the other systems that it is available on or just dont complain at all. Really dont see what the big fuss is all about.


(I know people are gonna quote me and say I am defending EA - even though I am not defending them)

It's about fairness, and third parties not acting like a bunch of spoiled children.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mazty on 07 January 2013
z101 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. 


It is naive to think that company decisions only based on facts and "where the money is". They are made by people. And people could be huffish or angry.

Fact is that EA wanted Nintendo to make Origin the only Wii U shop system. But Nintendo refused. Some people at EA are surely mad about Nintendo. 

Actually that's incredibly naive to think that management of such companies get "huffish" and would make decisions which would make the lose money because two things keep them in check:

a) profits and
b) stock holders

EA will be dissapointed that Origin isn't the store on the Wii U, but that isn't going to make them take adopt a juvenile attitude towards Nintendo. Big business doesn't work like that and ultimately this also is hardly the first case of a multiplat not being ported to the wii u. I think making out it's just EA having an attitude problem is Wii U owners trying to sugar coat a more serious issue. 



Mr Khan on 07 January 2013
kitler53 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.

i mostly agree with you here but to me the key distinction is it is the platform owner (nintendo, ms, sony) that has the primary responsibility to cultivate and develop a userbase. 

no one was making casual appropriate fare for the ps360 early on.  but then MS spent a billion or whatever dollars creating and hyping kinect to which the third party support (dancing games and such) followed.  sony half assed move and no one flinch.  success will compound over time and the presence of third parties will inspire more third parties but it is first and foremost the platform owners responsibility to attract a fanbases.  third parties have too many options to give a fuck (or a dime) to make any one (or all) of the big three successful.

Given the high-risk environment third parties seem to play in, they should be more grateful that people are giving them spaces to work in.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.