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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - RUMOR: Activision Upset at Black Ops II Wii U Sales, Says Nintendo Fans Are All Talk

routsounmanman on 03 March 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Which gen since the SNES has Nintendo ever followed suit with devs on specs?

N64 Era= Refused to make the jump to CD's and was overlooked by devs because competent competition arrived and they were free to expand their games.

Gamecube Era= Refused to make the jump to DVD's which could hold 8GB of information and stuck with minidisc that could hold a fraction of it. Technically the console was capable of better graphics but lacked the space needed to make the bigger and better games that devs pushing the console wanted to make. That and it was clear there was no love lost from how Nintendo dealt with third parties during the SNES and they realized Sony and now their new relationship with Nintendo was freer for them to create their own games.

Wii= Made a severely underpowered console that gave devs far less power and forced devs to use Nintendos short lived gimmick rather than making what they felt was right for the console. Some tried to make a good game and failed, few succeeded in trying to make a good game with the Wii and the rest played it smart and went for the cash grab once they realized it was gimmick.

Wii U= Nintendos first true attempt to win back the core gamers and they came a gen late in terms of tech. The media told Reggie about rumors of the other consoles having higher specs and what did Reggie say? "Lets wait and see" and game over again for Nintendo.

No one is to blame but Nintendo for the lack of third party interest of their console for nearly 20 years.

Nintendo gamers have to pay the piper if they refuse to pay for the COD game though. It was there and still sold dismally.

Third parties still supported the PS3 with its notoriously developer-unfriendly architecture,proving that with proper investment you can build an ecosystem in spite of hardware obstacles. Now if studios have put similar efforts into building an ecosystem on Wii, things would have been very different for both that console and Wii U. But no, they gave Wii gamers rail shooters instead of proper Resident Evil/Dead Space games.

People aren't just going to forget a whole generation of learned aversion; third parties have to show that they're not going to do the same thing this time.


Sony still had a wayyyyyy better relationship with third parties than Nintendo ever had with the PS3, which is why their longevity stayed on par with the Xbox even though they put out more first party than any of the competition. You did pay attention to the conference correct? Sony literally appologized and created the first ever western made Playstation not made by Ken Kutaragi. This Playstation will have a western twist while enjoying the best of the east and west in games. Thats like a match made in heaven...think about it. Why should developers go out of their way to make things for Nintendo when Nintendo should be preparing specs for their collective imaginations rather than just their own selfish family oriented desires? Why not something where everyone wins? Can you truly answer that? As for the PS3 getting dev support spite the issues, it basically sold on par with the Xbox throughout in multiplats especially as the years went by.

You could flip the question and ask why Nintendo should cater to those who want to push a bazillion polygons and shaders to selfishly satisfy their "imagination" instead of going with a more cost-effective solution that allows for backwards compatibility while providing enough power for both experiences proven in the PS360 field and new possibilities for their first party software. Can you imagine the price tag on the Wii U if it had PS4's specs AND the tablet controller?


Well I know the answer, Nintendo has NEVER truly catered themselves to devs. Devs always answered to them until the Playstation arrived.

Until Playstation came in, giving them money, kissing their asses, and making them the incompetent morons they're today. Thank you SONY for that.



My themeforest portfolio:

http://themeforest.net/user/corethemes/portfolio

Around the Network
BOLLOCKS on 03 March 2013

Makes me want to buy a WiiU.



the_dengle on 03 March 2013
Dodece said:

I used four distinct data points covering a span of almost twenty five years. That is more then sufficient to establish that there is a existing trend, and to factor out short term anomalies. Your problem isn't with the methodology. You just don't like the implications.

No, your methodology is bad and you should feel bad. You just rammed a few numbers together, got a couple of "data points" and applied them to a completely different situation, while entirely disregarding the last six years in the process, literally pretending the Wii never happened just because its biggest market was the dreaded casuals. That big fat 100 million didn't gel with your theory so you made up some excuse to discard it. Have some salt with that data point.



S.T.A.G.E. on 03 March 2013
routsounmanman said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Which gen since the SNES has Nintendo ever followed suit with devs on specs?

N64 Era= Refused to make the jump to CD's and was overlooked by devs because competent competition arrived and they were free to expand their games.

Gamecube Era= Refused to make the jump to DVD's which could hold 8GB of information and stuck with minidisc that could hold a fraction of it. Technically the console was capable of better graphics but lacked the space needed to make the bigger and better games that devs pushing the console wanted to make. That and it was clear there was no love lost from how Nintendo dealt with third parties during the SNES and they realized Sony and now their new relationship with Nintendo was freer for them to create their own games.

Wii= Made a severely underpowered console that gave devs far less power and forced devs to use Nintendos short lived gimmick rather than making what they felt was right for the console. Some tried to make a good game and failed, few succeeded in trying to make a good game with the Wii and the rest played it smart and went for the cash grab once they realized it was gimmick.

Wii U= Nintendos first true attempt to win back the core gamers and they came a gen late in terms of tech. The media told Reggie about rumors of the other consoles having higher specs and what did Reggie say? "Lets wait and see" and game over again for Nintendo.

No one is to blame but Nintendo for the lack of third party interest of their console for nearly 20 years.

Nintendo gamers have to pay the piper if they refuse to pay for the COD game though. It was there and still sold dismally.

Third parties still supported the PS3 with its notoriously developer-unfriendly architecture,proving that with proper investment you can build an ecosystem in spite of hardware obstacles. Now if studios have put similar efforts into building an ecosystem on Wii, things would have been very different for both that console and Wii U. But no, they gave Wii gamers rail shooters instead of proper Resident Evil/Dead Space games.

People aren't just going to forget a whole generation of learned aversion; third parties have to show that they're not going to do the same thing this time.


Sony still had a wayyyyyy better relationship with third parties than Nintendo ever had with the PS3, which is why their longevity stayed on par with the Xbox even though they put out more first party than any of the competition. You did pay attention to the conference correct? Sony literally appologized and created the first ever western made Playstation not made by Ken Kutaragi. This Playstation will have a western twist while enjoying the best of the east and west in games. Thats like a match made in heaven...think about it. Why should developers go out of their way to make things for Nintendo when Nintendo should be preparing specs for their collective imaginations rather than just their own selfish family oriented desires? Why not something where everyone wins? Can you truly answer that? As for the PS3 getting dev support spite the issues, it basically sold on par with the Xbox throughout in multiplats especially as the years went by.

You could flip the question and ask why Nintendo should cater to those who want to push a bazillion polygons and shaders to selfishly satisfy their "imagination" instead of going with a more cost-effective solution that allows for backwards compatibility while providing enough power for both experiences proven in the PS360 field and new possibilities for their first party software. Can you imagine the price tag on the Wii U if it had PS4's specs AND the tablet controller?


Well I know the answer, Nintendo has NEVER truly catered themselves to devs. Devs always answered to them until the Playstation arrived.

Until Playstation came in, giving them money, kissing their asses, and making them the incompetent morons they're today. Thank you SONY for that.


Learn this and learn this well. Nintendo forgets that they are a platform holder as well as a developer. Sony develops but they never forgot to resepect the vision of the developer (as well as their own) instead of forcing the developer to see their vision and theirs alone. As for the asskissing, its not ass kissing at all, its just realising that devs needed better specs to realize their visions, which was one of the first incentives to leave nintendo in the first place. It wasnt easy to leave Nintendos grip (trust me....Sega tried). Keep the devs happy and push their own creative agendas and your console will have a beautiful selection of games. Its called business and not keeping devs under lockdown like Nintendo did during the SNES era.



Darc Requiem on 03 March 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Which gen since the SNES has Nintendo ever followed suit with devs on specs?

N64 Era= Refused to make the jump to CD's and was overlooked by devs because competent competition arrived and they were free to expand their games.

Gamecube Era= Refused to make the jump to DVD's which could hold 8GB of information and stuck with minidisc that could hold a fraction of it. Technically the console was capable of better graphics but lacked the space needed to make the bigger and better games that devs pushing the console wanted to make. That and it was clear there was no love lost from how Nintendo dealt with third parties during the SNES and they realized Sony and now their new relationship with Nintendo was freer for them to create their own games.

Wii= Made a severely underpowered console that gave devs far less power and forced devs to use Nintendos short lived gimmick rather than making what they felt was right for the console. Some tried to make a good game and failed, few succeeded in trying to make a good game with the Wii and the rest played it smart and went for the cash grab once they realized it was gimmick.

Wii U= Nintendos first true attempt to win back the core gamers and they came a gen late in terms of tech. The media told Reggie about rumors of the other consoles having higher specs and what did Reggie say? "Lets wait and see" and game over again for Nintendo.

No one is to blame but Nintendo for the lack of third party interest of their console for nearly 20 years.

Nintendo gamers have to pay the piper if they refuse to pay for the COD game though. It was there and still sold dismally.

Third parties still supported the PS3 with its notoriously developer-unfriendly architecture,proving that with proper investment you can build an ecosystem in spite of hardware obstacles. Now if studios have put similar efforts into building an ecosystem on Wii, things would have been very different for both that console and Wii U. But no, they gave Wii gamers rail shooters instead of proper Resident Evil/Dead Space games.

People aren't just going to forget a whole generation of learned aversion; third parties have to show that they're not going to do the same thing this time.


Sony still had a wayyyyyy better relationship with third parties than Nintendo ever had with the PS3, which is why their longevity stayed on par with the Xbox even though they put out more first party than any of the competition. You did pay attention to the conference correct? Sony literally appologized and created the first ever western made Playstation not made by Ken Kutaragi. This Playstation will have a western twist while enjoying the best of the east and west in games. Thats like a match made in heaven...think about it. Why should developers go out of their way to make things for Nintendo when Nintendo should be preparing specs for their collective imaginations rather than just their own selfish family oriented desires? Why not something where everyone wins? Can you truly answer that? As for the PS3 getting dev support spite the issues, it basically sold on par with the Xbox throughout in multiplats especially as the years went by.

You could flip the question and ask why Nintendo should cater to those who want to push a bazillion polygons and shaders to selfishly satisfy their "imagination" instead of going with a more cost-effective solution that allows for backwards compatibility while providing enough power for both experiences proven in the PS360 field and new possibilities for their first party software. Can you imagine the price tag on the Wii U if it had PS4's specs AND the tablet controller?


Well I know the answer, Nintendo has NEVER truly catered themselves to devs. Devs always answered to them until the Playstation arrived.

The PS2 and PS3 weren't catered to devs either.


The PS2 catered to developers and expanded the disc space they could use. Kutaragi got cocky and used the cell (which also spiked up the PS3 price) which everyone expected to be awesome but turned out to be so wrong. Developers were psyched for it because on paper it was more powerful than the 360 if harnessed but actually it only helped exclusives and held back multiplats because games must be specifically made for the cell to work without a hitch. If you saw it as it was, it was misfire which was actually supposed to be a match made in heaven. They've finally succeeded and made all appologies in it with the PS4 by letting a western designer work out the specs. The PS4 will be the console that both Sony and third parties want it to be. Remember Microsoft and Sony were specifically asked by certain companies to use a specific amount of ram and other specs and Sony followed through. No one asked Nintendo because Nintendo never...ever...listens.

You are confusing the PS1 with the PS2. The PS1 was catered to devs. Sony was newcomer to the industry. So they bent over backwards to garner third party support with the PS1. Once they gained a dominant place in the market, they pulled several of the same draconian anti-third party tactics that NES/SNES era Nintendo pulled. Not only was the PS2 a complete nightmare to develop for, it's dev kits had horrible documentation. The PS3 continued the trend. Sony's philosophy after their success with the PS1 changed. They were number one, they built their hardware the way they wanted, and if you were a third party developer their response was "deal with it."

One of the biggest contrast with the PS2 and PS3 that the PS4 has is a obvious catering to third parties. Sony doesn't have the dominant marketshare anymore. They also don't have the biggest wallet. That being the case they seem to be going back the PS1 style philosphy that garnered them success in the first place.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 03 March 2013
Darc Requiem said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Which gen since the SNES has Nintendo ever followed suit with devs on specs?

N64 Era= Refused to make the jump to CD's and was overlooked by devs because competent competition arrived and they were free to expand their games.

Gamecube Era= Refused to make the jump to DVD's which could hold 8GB of information and stuck with minidisc that could hold a fraction of it. Technically the console was capable of better graphics but lacked the space needed to make the bigger and better games that devs pushing the console wanted to make. That and it was clear there was no love lost from how Nintendo dealt with third parties during the SNES and they realized Sony and now their new relationship with Nintendo was freer for them to create their own games.

Wii= Made a severely underpowered console that gave devs far less power and forced devs to use Nintendos short lived gimmick rather than making what they felt was right for the console. Some tried to make a good game and failed, few succeeded in trying to make a good game with the Wii and the rest played it smart and went for the cash grab once they realized it was gimmick.

Wii U= Nintendos first true attempt to win back the core gamers and they came a gen late in terms of tech. The media told Reggie about rumors of the other consoles having higher specs and what did Reggie say? "Lets wait and see" and game over again for Nintendo.

No one is to blame but Nintendo for the lack of third party interest of their console for nearly 20 years.

Nintendo gamers have to pay the piper if they refuse to pay for the COD game though. It was there and still sold dismally.

Third parties still supported the PS3 with its notoriously developer-unfriendly architecture,proving that with proper investment you can build an ecosystem in spite of hardware obstacles. Now if studios have put similar efforts into building an ecosystem on Wii, things would have been very different for both that console and Wii U. But no, they gave Wii gamers rail shooters instead of proper Resident Evil/Dead Space games.

People aren't just going to forget a whole generation of learned aversion; third parties have to show that they're not going to do the same thing this time.


Sony still had a wayyyyyy better relationship with third parties than Nintendo ever had with the PS3, which is why their longevity stayed on par with the Xbox even though they put out more first party than any of the competition. You did pay attention to the conference correct? Sony literally appologized and created the first ever western made Playstation not made by Ken Kutaragi. This Playstation will have a western twist while enjoying the best of the east and west in games. Thats like a match made in heaven...think about it. Why should developers go out of their way to make things for Nintendo when Nintendo should be preparing specs for their collective imaginations rather than just their own selfish family oriented desires? Why not something where everyone wins? Can you truly answer that? As for the PS3 getting dev support spite the issues, it basically sold on par with the Xbox throughout in multiplats especially as the years went by.

You could flip the question and ask why Nintendo should cater to those who want to push a bazillion polygons and shaders to selfishly satisfy their "imagination" instead of going with a more cost-effective solution that allows for backwards compatibility while providing enough power for both experiences proven in the PS360 field and new possibilities for their first party software. Can you imagine the price tag on the Wii U if it had PS4's specs AND the tablet controller?


Well I know the answer, Nintendo has NEVER truly catered themselves to devs. Devs always answered to them until the Playstation arrived.

The PS2 and PS3 weren't catered to devs either.


The PS2 catered to developers and expanded the disc space they could use. Kutaragi got cocky and used the cell (which also spiked up the PS3 price) which everyone expected to be awesome but turned out to be so wrong. Developers were psyched for it because on paper it was more powerful than the 360 if harnessed but actually it only helped exclusives and held back multiplats because games must be specifically made for the cell to work without a hitch. If you saw it as it was, it was misfire which was actually supposed to be a match made in heaven. They've finally succeeded and made all appologies in it with the PS4 by letting a western designer work out the specs. The PS4 will be the console that both Sony and third parties want it to be. Remember Microsoft and Sony were specifically asked by certain companies to use a specific amount of ram and other specs and Sony followed through. No one asked Nintendo because Nintendo never...ever...listens.

You are confusing the PS1 with the PS2. The PS1 was catered to devs. Sony was newcomer to the industry. So they bent over backwards to garner third party support with the PS1. Once they gained a dominant place in the market, they pulled several of the same draconian anti-third party tactics that NES/SNES era Nintendo pulled. Not only was the PS2 a complete nightmare to develop for, it's dev kits had horrible documentation. The PS3 continued the trend. Sony's philosophy after their success with the PS1 changed. They were number one, they built their hardware the way they wanted, and if you were a third party developer their response was "deal with it."

One of the biggest contrast with the PS2 and PS3 that the PS4 has is a obvious catering to third parties. Sony doesn't have the dominant marketshare anymore. They also don't have the biggest wallet. That being the case they seem to be going back the PS1 style philosphy that garnered them success in the first place.


Never in my life did I hear that the PS2 gave devs a hard time, but we all know the PS3 did and they were vocal about it. The Gamecube discs were not desirable because despite the fact that the Cube had better graphics it couldnt hold much on the disc Nintendo had made for them. I believe the comissioned Panasonic to make it.



prayformojo on 03 March 2013
Otakumegane said:
prayformojo said:
Idk, Xenoblade was released on a promise, and it sold what it was expected to sell. I just think it's a case by case thing.


Uh...Xenoblade is a 1st party game

So it was developed IN HOUSE by Nintendo? Xenoblade is not a first party title like Zelda. It was PUBLISHED by Nintendo, but not developed by them.



Darc Requiem on 03 March 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Darc Requiem said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Which gen since the SNES has Nintendo ever followed suit with devs on specs?

N64 Era= Refused to make the jump to CD's and was overlooked by devs because competent competition arrived and they were free to expand their games.

Gamecube Era= Refused to make the jump to DVD's which could hold 8GB of information and stuck with minidisc that could hold a fraction of it. Technically the console was capable of better graphics but lacked the space needed to make the bigger and better games that devs pushing the console wanted to make. That and it was clear there was no love lost from how Nintendo dealt with third parties during the SNES and they realized Sony and now their new relationship with Nintendo was freer for them to create their own games.

Wii= Made a severely underpowered console that gave devs far less power and forced devs to use Nintendos short lived gimmick rather than making what they felt was right for the console. Some tried to make a good game and failed, few succeeded in trying to make a good game with the Wii and the rest played it smart and went for the cash grab once they realized it was gimmick.

Wii U= Nintendos first true attempt to win back the core gamers and they came a gen late in terms of tech. The media told Reggie about rumors of the other consoles having higher specs and what did Reggie say? "Lets wait and see" and game over again for Nintendo.

No one is to blame but Nintendo for the lack of third party interest of their console for nearly 20 years.

Nintendo gamers have to pay the piper if they refuse to pay for the COD game though. It was there and still sold dismally.

Third parties still supported the PS3 with its notoriously developer-unfriendly architecture,proving that with proper investment you can build an ecosystem in spite of hardware obstacles. Now if studios have put similar efforts into building an ecosystem on Wii, things would have been very different for both that console and Wii U. But no, they gave Wii gamers rail shooters instead of proper Resident Evil/Dead Space games.

People aren't just going to forget a whole generation of learned aversion; third parties have to show that they're not going to do the same thing this time.


Sony still had a wayyyyyy better relationship with third parties than Nintendo ever had with the PS3, which is why their longevity stayed on par with the Xbox even though they put out more first party than any of the competition. You did pay attention to the conference correct? Sony literally appologized and created the first ever western made Playstation not made by Ken Kutaragi. This Playstation will have a western twist while enjoying the best of the east and west in games. Thats like a match made in heaven...think about it. Why should developers go out of their way to make things for Nintendo when Nintendo should be preparing specs for their collective imaginations rather than just their own selfish family oriented desires? Why not something where everyone wins? Can you truly answer that? As for the PS3 getting dev support spite the issues, it basically sold on par with the Xbox throughout in multiplats especially as the years went by.

You could flip the question and ask why Nintendo should cater to those who want to push a bazillion polygons and shaders to selfishly satisfy their "imagination" instead of going with a more cost-effective solution that allows for backwards compatibility while providing enough power for both experiences proven in the PS360 field and new possibilities for their first party software. Can you imagine the price tag on the Wii U if it had PS4's specs AND the tablet controller?


Well I know the answer, Nintendo has NEVER truly catered themselves to devs. Devs always answered to them until the Playstation arrived.

The PS2 and PS3 weren't catered to devs either.


The PS2 catered to developers and expanded the disc space they could use. Kutaragi got cocky and used the cell (which also spiked up the PS3 price) which everyone expected to be awesome but turned out to be so wrong. Developers were psyched for it because on paper it was more powerful than the 360 if harnessed but actually it only helped exclusives and held back multiplats because games must be specifically made for the cell to work without a hitch. If you saw it as it was, it was misfire which was actually supposed to be a match made in heaven. They've finally succeeded and made all appologies in it with the PS4 by letting a western designer work out the specs. The PS4 will be the console that both Sony and third parties want it to be. Remember Microsoft and Sony were specifically asked by certain companies to use a specific amount of ram and other specs and Sony followed through. No one asked Nintendo because Nintendo never...ever...listens.

You are confusing the PS1 with the PS2. The PS1 was catered to devs. Sony was newcomer to the industry. So they bent over backwards to garner third party support with the PS1. Once they gained a dominant place in the market, they pulled several of the same draconian anti-third party tactics that NES/SNES era Nintendo pulled. Not only was the PS2 a complete nightmare to develop for, it's dev kits had horrible documentation. The PS3 continued the trend. Sony's philosophy after their success with the PS1 changed. They were number one, they built their hardware the way they wanted, and if you were a third party developer their response was "deal with it."

One of the biggest contrast with the PS2 and PS3 that the PS4 has is a obvious catering to third parties. Sony doesn't have the dominant marketshare anymore. They also don't have the biggest wallet. That being the case they seem to be going back the PS1 style philosphy that garnered them success in the first place.


Never in my life did I hear that the PS2 gave devs a hard time, but we all know the PS3 did and they were vocal about it. The Gamecube discs were not desirable because despite the fact that the Cube had better graphics it couldnt hold much on the disc Nintendo had made for them. I believe the comissioned Panasonic to make it.

Then you were either too young to remember or not paying attention. Developers complained frequently about the PS2 architecture and especially the dev kits. One of the biggest issues with the PS2 besides the horrid dev environment was the lack of VRAM and hardware texture compression. The PS2 had half the VRAM of the Dreamcast and no texture compression. The PS2 was the only platform of that generation without hardware texture compression. The PS2 had hardware Anti-Aliasing....but it was several years into the generation before Sony bothered to document the feature. Several developers wasted time developing software solutions to "architectural mirages." They developed software ware solutions to features hardcoded into the PS2 hardware that they were unaware due to the piss poor documentation in the PS2 dev kits.

@Prayformojo

Monolithsoft is wholely owned by Nintendo. Any game they produce is first party.



teigaga on 03 March 2013
snyps said:

I fully agree with OT.

Nintendo fans arent supportive of ports. Then we bitch. I plan on selling a huge lot from my game collection and buying up 3rd party WiiU launch titles. We gotta send the right message together

Its not the role of fans to force interest in something which they don't have interest in. Realistically no one should have had high expectation for the this game because the heart soul of it lies in multiplayer which means, the version you purchase (even if you have a wii U) is largely dictated by what version the rest of your friends are playing on. It would have been silly to believe that the Would have a large userbase of representative of COD fans. The majority of cod fans are casual gamers, they are not early adopters.

Ports of upcoing games with an emphasis on single player are whats important. Like GTA...

Games like COD will have a better chnace on breaking 1m on the wii U once the wii U has a strong online community. 



PlaystaionGamer on 03 March 2013

Rumours.. Rumours..

i don't think Nintendo needs Cod anyway, look at how well COD did on the Wii? Cod players rant buying WiiU's