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

Forums - Nintendo - Call of Duty: Ghosts Wii U accounts for less than 1% of game’s total sales

Tagged games:

Wright said:

Anyone playing online? :P

Yes there is, today I played Extinction mode for a few hours, and you can easily find players, maybe not a LOT of players, but still. Not sure about competitive modes, cause I don't play those at all.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:

Wouldn't know, I never touch COD online, I bought it for campaign and local alien mode, was not disappointed. ;)

You should give it a try, at least to the alien mode online, is fun and is complex to try to make a team out of some random people.



Is anyone surprised by this ?



Thing is, on Wii, not only was there a much bigger install base for COD to sell to, but the console's hardware excused missing features. Nintendo gamers were sure that once they had a HD-capable console, they would finally get fair treatment and a high quality port.

But that didn't happen. Both Black Ops II and Ghosts on Wii U lacked DLC, (despite Treyarch promising it for the former) were not as optimized as they should have been, launched with a plethora of bugs, and in the case of BO2, had support cut a few months after launch.

I was active on the Wii U section of the official forums, and many, many people there either said that they weren't getting Ghosts because they were pissed off about how they were treated with Black Ops II, or that they would wait and see how others reported the port to be before buying.
Needless to say, when day 1 buyers such as myself reported texture bugs, freezing bugs, and performance dips,* many of them said "fuck it, not buying."

There was a potential market for COD on Wii U, but players were simply not satisfied with what they got.

*These issues have since been patched, but the damage was done as far as tainting the port's image.



curl-6 said:

Thing is, on Wii, not only was there a much bigger install base for COD to sell to, but the console's hardware excused missing features. Nintendo gamers were sure that once they had a HD-capable console, they would finally get fair treatment and a high quality port.

But that didn't happen. Both Black Ops II and Ghosts on Wii U lacked DLC, (despite Treyarch promising it for the former) were not as optimized as they should have been, launched with a plethora of bugs, and in the case of BO2, had support cut a few months after launch.

I was active on the Wii U section of the official forums, and many, many people there either said that they weren't getting Ghosts because they were pissed off about how they were treated with Black Ops II, or that they would wait and see how others reported the port to be before buying.
Needless to say, when day 1 buyers such as myself reported texture bugs, freezing bugs, and performance dips,* many of them said "fuck it, not buying."

There was a potential market for COD on Wii U, but players were simply not satisfied with what they got.

*These issues have since been patched, but the damage was done as far as tainting the port's image.


DLC is NOT a feature, I serioulsly doubt that much people would have bought it in any case. IMHO its just an excuse for poor sales. So all of a sudden DLC is important? Coming from some of the same people who swore it was a ripoff anyway? Please

As for the other issues, welcome to COD. Its always been like that. Even the 360 version is no exempt but the PS3 versions were never hot but people STILL bought those, in droves, so either A PS gamers dont care about the bugs or B PS owners are just more prone to play COD than Wii u owners are.



Around the Network
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:

Thing is, on Wii, not only was there a much bigger install base for COD to sell to, but the console's hardware excused missing features. Nintendo gamers were sure that once they had a HD-capable console, they would finally get fair treatment and a high quality port.

But that didn't happen. Both Black Ops II and Ghosts on Wii U lacked DLC, (despite Treyarch promising it for the former) were not as optimized as they should have been, launched with a plethora of bugs, and in the case of BO2, had support cut a few months after launch.

I was active on the Wii U section of the official forums, and many, many people there either said that they weren't getting Ghosts because they were pissed off about how they were treated with Black Ops II, or that they would wait and see how others reported the port to be before buying.
Needless to say, when day 1 buyers such as myself reported texture bugs, freezing bugs, and performance dips,* many of them said "fuck it, not buying."

There was a potential market for COD on Wii U, but players were simply not satisfied with what they got.

*These issues have since been patched, but the damage was done as far as tainting the port's image.


DLC is NOT a feature, I serioulsly doubt that much people would have bought it in any case. IMHO its just an excuse for poor sales. So all of a sudden DLC is important? Coming from some of the same people who swore it was a ripoff anyway? Please

As for the other issues, welcome to COD. Its always been like that. Even the 360 version is no exempt but the PS3 versions were never hot but people STILL bought those, in droves, so either A PS gamers dont care about the bugs or B PS owners are just more prone to play COD than Wii u owners are.

I do consider DLC a ripoff in most cases, but I'm not speaking of myself, (I bought the game day 1) I'm talking of the fanbase. Wii U owners on the official forums were pretty much "DLC or no buy, we want equal treatment or we're not supporting them".

And Xbox/PS gamers are definitely more accepting of bugs than Nintendo gamers; they've been conditioned to accept the "release is broken, patch it later" method over the previous generation.



curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:

Thing is, on Wii, not only was there a much bigger install base for COD to sell to, but the console's hardware excused missing features. Nintendo gamers were sure that once they had a HD-capable console, they would finally get fair treatment and a high quality port.

But that didn't happen. Both Black Ops II and Ghosts on Wii U lacked DLC, (despite Treyarch promising it for the former) were not as optimized as they should have been, launched with a plethora of bugs, and in the case of BO2, had support cut a few months after launch.

I was active on the Wii U section of the official forums, and many, many people there either said that they weren't getting Ghosts because they were pissed off about how they were treated with Black Ops II, or that they would wait and see how others reported the port to be before buying.
Needless to say, when day 1 buyers such as myself reported texture bugs, freezing bugs, and performance dips,* many of them said "fuck it, not buying."

There was a potential market for COD on Wii U, but players were simply not satisfied with what they got.

*These issues have since been patched, but the damage was done as far as tainting the port's image.


DLC is NOT a feature, I serioulsly doubt that much people would have bought it in any case. IMHO its just an excuse for poor sales. So all of a sudden DLC is important? Coming from some of the same people who swore it was a ripoff anyway? Please

As for the other issues, welcome to COD. Its always been like that. Even the 360 version is no exempt but the PS3 versions were never hot but people STILL bought those, in droves, so either A PS gamers dont care about the bugs or B PS owners are just more prone to play COD than Wii u owners are.

I do consider DLC a ripoff in most cases, but I'm not speaking of myself, (I bought the game day 1) I'm talking of the fanbase. Wii U owners on the official forums were pretty much "DLC or no buy, we want equal treatment or we're not supporting them".

And Xbox/PS gamers are definitely more accepting of bugs than Nintendo gamers; they've been conditioned to accept the "release is broken, patch it later" method over the previous generation.

Im sure most of those guys would have bought DLC even if they did get it, im thinking no. If lack of DLC is what really pissed them off(and im doubting it) then they werent really big into the game to begin with.

That last statement is a load of nonsense. Its not like NO Ninty games or even games on Ninty systems doesnt have bugs. MK7 had a patch, MK for DS really needed to be patched. Metroid other M needed a patch, SS had a glitch. I couldnt finish Bully cause it had a glitch. GE crashed on me numerous times. Hell i had the Wii itself crash on me numerous times. Maybe its not so much that MS/SOny fans are more accepting of bugs than Ninty fans, maybe its just that these bug heavy games dont even exist on Ninty platforms in the first place (Skyrim).



oniyide said:

Im sure most of those guys would have bought DLC even if they did get it, im thinking no. If lack of DLC is what really pissed them off(and im doubting it) then they werent really big into the game to begin with.

That last statement is a load of nonsense. Its not like NO Ninty games or even games on Ninty systems doesnt have bugs. MK7 had a patch, MK for DS really needed to be patched. Metroid other M needed a patch, SS had a glitch. I couldnt finish Bully cause it had a glitch. GE crashed on me numerous times. Hell i had the Wii itself crash on me numerous times. Maybe its not so much that MS/SOny fans are more accepting of bugs than Ninty fans, maybe its just that these bug heavy games dont even exist on Ninty platforms in the first place (Skyrim).

It wasn't just the DLC itself, it was that they were angry over being promised it last time only to miss out, and about being treated as second class citizens.

And NIntendo games are far, far less glitchy than those of the vast majority of other devs. You'd never have a Nintendo game launch in the state that Ghost WIi U did. The games you mentioned were not only exceptions to the rule, but had only isolated problems, not the near constant barrage of bugs a lot of AAA third party games have these days.





curl-6 said:
oniyide said:

Im sure most of those guys would have bought DLC even if they did get it, im thinking no. If lack of DLC is what really pissed them off(and im doubting it) then they werent really big into the game to begin with.

That last statement is a load of nonsense. Its not like NO Ninty games or even games on Ninty systems doesnt have bugs. MK7 had a patch, MK for DS really needed to be patched. Metroid other M needed a patch, SS had a glitch. I couldnt finish Bully cause it had a glitch. GE crashed on me numerous times. Hell i had the Wii itself crash on me numerous times. Maybe its not so much that MS/SOny fans are more accepting of bugs than Ninty fans, maybe its just that these bug heavy games dont even exist on Ninty platforms in the first place (Skyrim).

It wasn't just the DLC itself, it was that they were angry over being promised it last time only to miss out, and about being treated as second class citizens.

And NIntendo games are far, far less glitchy than those of the vast majority of other devs. You'd never have a Nintendo game launch in the state that Ghost WIi U did. The games you mentioned were not only exceptions to the rule, but had only isolated problems, not the near constant barrage of bugs a lot of AAA third party games have these days.

I can see how being promised it would suck, however that doesnt change my intial point that these types of games simply dont fit the WIi u demograph(and Ninty) all that well. 

There wouldnt be alot of games period released in the state that Ghosts did, BUT i havent played the game and most reviews havent made mention of it, but ill take your word for it anyway. What are these numerous AAA games that release with so much bugs? NVM it really doesnt add to the topic