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

Forums - Nintendo - Call of Duty: Ghosts might not hit Wii U after all

Aielyn said:
He got in trouble for letting the cat out of the bag, I think. There's really no way that he meant "I'm not supposed to talk about the fact that I don't know" when he quite specifically spoke of PR not letting him talk about it and that they "want to be mysterious". PR told him off for revealing what he did, and now he's forced to go and say things like this.

Wouldn't be surprised, though, if PR "want [it] to be mysterious" so that, if they decide to pull support, it's not actually cancelling the game publicly, but just never announcing it.


Good call.



Around the Network

Why the f$3% don't they just confirm yes or no? What do they gain by being "mysterious" about the Wii U version?



EricFabian said:
Einsam_Delphin said:
Noes, it must come! Call of Duty: Dogs would go great with Super Mario: Cats! D:


lmao



I'm somewhat serious though!

curl-6 said:
Why the f$3% don't they just confirm yes or no? What do they gain by being "mysterious" about the Wii U version?

Two things they gain.

1. The ability to cancel development without it being "Wii U version of game cancelled" in media - if they never actually confirm its existence, the cancellation gets swept under the proverbial rug.

2. Negotiating position - they can go to Nintendo and go "If you want us to even confirm the game before release, you're going to need to cough up some money towards some things... <gives list>".

It's also entirely possible that there's some in-development Wii U version features that aren't yet certain to be in the final product, and they want to announce the game for the Wii U with those features revealed on announcement, assuming they make the grade. This doesn't explain the PR insistence on not even allowing an unofficial confirmation that the game exists (although PR can't really tell Activision Publishing's CEO not to confirm it), that part falls under the two points I made. But it does explain the "mysterious" comment that Rubin originally made.