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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Emily Rogers: “Wii U Owners Better Buy Ubisoft Games”

First of all, I understand that the comment in the OP comes from someone associated with Nintendo, NOT with Ubisoft. This isn't a threat, it's a warning, and it's a justified one.

Nonetheless, my own comment directed at most of the conversation in this thread is this:

I think people are a little confused about Nintendo's role in selling third-party games on their system. Let me offer an example: suppose you found out that, say, Terminal Reality (makers of such gems as Kinect Star Wars and TWD: Survival Instinct) was making a new IP for PS4 at launch. How likely would you be to buy it versus Knack, Drive Club, Killzone, etc?

This is how many Nintendo gamers feel when a company called "Ubisoft" (gee, I remember that name! They made Far Cry Vengeance, Raving Rabbids, Nitrobike, Red Steel, Just Dance, and Michael Jackson the Experience for the Wii! Those were some quality titles... LOW quality titles) is on the Wii U at launch with some game you've never heard of called "Assassin's Creed"... and also Rabbids Land, ZombiU, ESPN Sports Connection, Marvel Avengers: Battle for Earth, and the yearly Just Dance installment.

Lots of companies treat Nintendo consoles like this. They neglect them for years, then expect to receive a warm reception when they suddenly show up for the party. When Assassin's Creed III was released on Wii U, it wasn't as though the whole user base had been clamoring for it since the series was created; it was more like none of them had ever even heard of it before, or at least hadn't played it and didn't know what to expect from it. It was as though the game had suddenly appeared from the void. Imagine if a game called Killer Habits 5 was suddenly released on PS3/360, made by a company you recognize as a huge producer of shovelware, and you had never heard of this series before. Are you gonna buy it? Hell no. It is the publisher's duty to market its product, to inform the customers and convince them to purchase their game. Activision can't just put Call of Duty on Wii U and expect it to sell an easy 8 million like it does on other consoles. They built up those sales on PS3/360 with years of consistent, annual, high-quality releases and tons and tons of marketing. They do nothing to market COD on Nintendo systems. COD4, the game that really made the series take off, wasn't released on Wii until 2009, two years too late. Modern Warfare 2 Skipped the console entirely.

You see, Ubisoft (and Activision) have achieved their sales by nurturing their releases on Sony and Microsoft platforms. They have established popularity on those platforms through their own hard work. Now they expect that popularity to simply be waiting for them on Nintendo consoles, or worse, they expect Nintendo to go out of their way to establish that popularity for them so they don't have to do any actual work building brand recognition and TRUST with a new group of customers.

Long story short, if Ubisoft wants their games to sell well on Nintendo consoles, they had better give Nintendo console owners a better reason to buy their games than, "or we won't give you any more games." Because at this stage, most Nintendo gamers don't even know what they would be missing. It's Ubisoft's job to TELL them what they'd be missing, and they're not doing that. They actually got it right with Rayman Legends, offering the Challenge App for free for several months. This built goodwill between Ubisoft and Wii U owners and established that brand recognition and trust I mentioned between them. And that's why Legends appears to be selling better (or at least roughly as well) on Wii U than on two platforms with 20 times its install base.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
KylieDog said:

Generally Nintendo fans, especially those on forums will trash a third party game for not doing something while defending a Nintendo game for not doing the same thing.

If they would take the same finger they use to point at third party games and point at Nintendo they would find a lot less to complain about.

Cannot blame third parties, they see Nintendo fans buying something in mass and cheering about it, then when they release a similar featured product suddenly they find themselves blasted and being called lazy and so forth by those same fans.

Hm... let me think about this a bit. Since Rayman is already part of the topic, I remember there was a huge outcry over the lack of online play in NSMB Wii. Nintendo fans obviously defended the game, then two years later Rayman Origins released without online play. Nintendo fans didn't bash Origins for it, neither did the people who made a huge fuss about NSMB Wii's lack of online play. A quite memorable double standard, although it wasn't employed by Nintendo fans.


BS. These are two totally different games. NSMBWii is a game DESIGNED around multiplayer, it's meant to be played with other people, in every trailer you see it being played by 4 players, hence the critique is well earned. I have Rayman Origins and never have I though about playing it online. It's a game designed around a single player experience and I wouldn't even want to play it in multiplayer mode, I highly doubt it would feel as good as it does in single player. Two different games, different expectations.

 

@Your "Nintendo standards" - LOL!! Hahahaha!! The one and only reason you think this might be true is because the Wii was such a halfassed console for its time that it didn't support patches. Do you still remember that these were exactly the same standards for Sony, MS and all 3rd parties in the PS2/GCN/Xbox/Dreamcast era and earlier? Wii U already proves you wrong if you expect that level from Nintendo to continue and just you wait and see what a mess the next Mario Kart is gonna be if the rumours about it being pushed earlier are true. Also I just can't follow you Nintendo supporters. In one post you say "Nintendo gamers are used to higher standards than what 3rd parties, Sony and MS give", while in the next one you're gonna say "most Wii U owners have other consoles". You just can't win...



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.

Do people seriously think platformers work online?



Sounds like Ubi Soft will be dropping support (at least of the non-Just Dance variety) next year then because I think Assassin's Creed IV will be an outright flop on Wii U while Watch Dogs probably won't sell what they want either.



pezus said:

So here we are yet again. The 3rd party that has supported WiiU the most is probably ready to stop porting its games any day now. I'm not even sure if they'd do the Just Dance games on WiiU?

ironically apart from Rayman Legends, Just Dance 4 on wii u has some neat litle things on the gamepad to get more people invovled in the game.



 

 

Around the Network
kupomogli said:
RolStoppable said:
You've heard it, everyone. Buy Ubisoft games to show them that halfassed is good enough for you.

I thought Nintendo fans were praising Ubisoft for supporting their console and not half assing their games.  Now that Ubisoft makes a comment about the Wii U and this comes out, Nintendo fans suddently don't care about Ubisoft.

why you generalising?

Also clearly you haven't seen splinter cell on Wii U.



 

 

Nintendo should have started taking big steps towards real self sufficiency a looong time ago.

It´s been clear, for quite some time, that chances are slim a Nintendo home console will ever see again the kind of 3rd party support the NES and SNES had.

What they need is truly being self sufficient, not depend on anyone but themselves to carry the system, while avoiding these huge fucking droughts.They need to have the capacity and manpower to be able to release their games at a much quicker pace while maintaining the quality a lot of people have come to expect from them.

Pretty hard, but they have to do it.



The odds of The Division coming to WiiU are reaching lottery levels



Wow, lots of people complaining about Ubisoft support for Nintendo consoles?

Ubisoft are the only third party to truly support Nintendo consoles. They released the only true next-gen third party exclusive on WiiU, they've supported the console far more than other publishers like EA (who gave up after 3 titles had lacklustre sales), and are still releasing all their top titles on the console.

In the early years of a console, releases are supposed to help warm a userbase to your titles/franchises. Ubisoft knows this but if the userbase doesn't warm to these titles but they do on other consoles, then it wouldn't be that surprising to see extra support for those other consoles. I think Ubisoft support on WiiU is now very dependent on how the PS4/X1 multiplats do compared to the WiiU versions.



RolStoppable said:
mutantclown said:
RolStoppable said:

Then let's get this out upfront: Ubisoft's games suck, period. When they release games like AC3 that require a day 1 patch, then they are clearly not meeting the standards a Nintendo console owner has come to expect. I mean, it's a bit nonsensical to assume that equality is the bar that has to be met when the quality standards for Ubisoft games lack in general. Equally poor is still poor.

I had to LOL at this. 

You might laugh, but it's the truth. I was quite shocked when pezus and outlawauron confirmed to me that nowadays patches are the norm for pretty much every major game.

Expect this to happen to Nintendo games or for a really sparse and spread release schedule for 1st party titles. Patches are the norm due to the extra complexity of HD development and the extra costsassociated with it.

This is new territory for Nintendo.