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

Forums - Nintendo - Emily Rogers: Ubisoft won't comment on Wii U version of Watch Dogs

Cobretti2 on 01 February 2014
oniyide said:
Cobretti2 said:
oniyide said:
NightDragon83 said:
superchunk said:
This means Nintendo needs to pay for it or its not happening. Forget it. I following Rol and only buying Nintendo published games.

Well, you do realize that by only buying Nintendo's games, you're pretty much proving the point that Nintendo gamers don't buy 3rd party games, therefore why should 3rd parties devote money and resources to developing for Nintendo consoles?

And if I were weighing the options of whether or not my company should release a big game on a console that is not only selling poorly at the moment but whose audience will largely ignore my game anyway no matter how much time and effort I put into it, then you're darn right I'm going to want some financial guarantees for me to make it happen.  Companies like Ubisoft aren't running charities.


i wouldnt bother, if some "gamers" and yes i am using that term loosely want to miss out on games out of butthurt, they only hurt themselves

your statement is partially wrong.

They hurting themselves and OTHERS who really enjoy games for games that can afford only one system.

On a side note, this also has the potential to get worst for those who buy other consoles to compensated te lack of 3rd party on Nintendo. Imagine if Microsoft and Sony both had DRM implemented and your dead against it. You would have to either ignore the games and miss out completely or accept DRM and hope you can enjoy these games later when the gen ends and thr DRM check server is no longer running.

Everyone here im assuming is an adult. I dont buy the fact that you can only afford one console, not if you have a steady form of employment. Especially in superchunk's case. You mean to tell me within the 5-6 years of any given console cycle a working adult could only afford ONE gaming machine? I dont buy it. Especially when it comes to Ninty we pretty much KNOW how its going to go down at this point. So for better or worst you're buying a second system or you are missing out, its that simple.

THe DRM is not a good argument because it didnt come to fruition. Personally i would have just quit gaming and continued with older systems.

OK when I say can't afford I mean simply because either:

1. Mortgage out of control (epsecially in Aus with house prices here)

2. Kids and their education

3. and Most importantly a nagging wife who sees no value in you owning more than one lol.

 

I do agree that a normal adult should be able to afford more than one system.

The DRM is just an example of how of putting it would have been for many gamers. I too would have stuck with older systems or even switch to PC as I know steam is going to be around. Chances are i would jsut go fully retro and go back to the basics of gaming lol.



 

 

Around the Network
Cobretti2 on 01 February 2014
Anfebious said:

Wow Kwaidd's post made me realize something important. He is completely right about Ubisoft, Rayman Legends was an excellent game. There is no reason to doubt them. Yes, they delayed Rayman Legends, but it was an incredible game so it was worth the wait!

I think we should all stop attacking Ubisoft and vote with our wallets. Let's all go and buy Watch Dogs the day it releases on Wii U, oh and the DLC too if it ever releases for the Wii U version.


I been saying it for ages for the one inconveniance of a delay, Ubisoft annouced 3 great triple A games. Best part my guit tripping convinced one guy on here to buy Rayman Legends wooo.  So peer pressure is the key. Lets start toughening up on shit excuses for why people are not buying good 3rd party support. And convert these vocal 3rd party gae wanters into wallet voting gamers.



 

 

prayformojo on 01 February 2014
artur-fernand said:
prayformojo said:
Fusioncode said:
superchunk said:
This means Nintendo needs to pay for it or its not happening. Forget it. I following Rol and only buying Nintendo published games.

And that's precisely the reason why 3rd parties are avoiding the WiiU like the plague. Why would they waste time and money porting a game over if nobody bothers to buy?


That is a bold face lie by them. You want to know the real reason why the Wii-U is struggling so hard to attract these huge third party publishers? It's because they can't release half games for full price and sell the other half via DLC due to Nintendo only throwing 32GB in the system. It's the same reason EA left. They wanted to screw people over with their microtransaction bullshit and cram Orgin down their throats. Nintendo doesn't allow for that sort of thing by choice, or design.

In a way, this is exposing the truth about modern AAA publishers. It's letting us see who's who. There use to be a time when the line of thinking was "come up with great original idea, make great game with as much content as humanly possible to entertain the gamer, profit". Now it's mostly "create product, market product, make as much profit as possible from product, repeat". The game industry has become the movie industry now.

It's basically Nintendo and indie devs that still do it the old way, the RIGHT way. Unfortunately, greed is taking over.

This whole idea of "nowadays retail games are incomplete and you have to buy DLC to have the complete experience" is one of the biggest bullshits the gaming community has thrown around in the last few years. I cannot think of a single game that was ACTUALLY incomplete, that REQUIRED you to buy extra content to get the full game. DLC is an extension of the game, not a part removed from the game and then sold elsewhere. If you don't buy it, you're not missing the core of the game.

In fact, your whole post is a synthesis of the strange notion that most Nintendo's fans have: Nintendo are the good guys, and third-parties are downright evil for not releasing games for the Wii U. Yeah, fuck those evil publishers!

 

And you know of the biggest franchises in gaming? GTA? Yeah, that has a lot of content and barely any DLC. AC also has a lot of content and the games are fun, despite being yearly instalments (which, unlike popular belief, are not synonym with horrible games and the bane of the gaming industry).

I'll give you this though: on-disc DLC is indeed bullshit. The content is already there, but you can't access it? Yeah, no thanks Capcom.


You missed the entire point of my post which is that big publishing is bad for gaming in general. When the thought process started to get to the point where it was no longer "hey, if we make the best game possible, people will buy it", gaming as a whole took a nose dive. Indie devs still think that way. Major publishers don't. They think in hard numbers. It's now about "does this IP allow for DLC revenue" or "this character needs to look more hip so the target demopgrah can relate".

It's gone holywood and it blows. The Wii-U's inability to support alot of this DLC has, in a way, exposed how bad it's gotten.



Mr Khan on 01 February 2014
JoeTheBro said:
snowdog said:
JoeTheBro said:
I wouldn't be shocked, but I still think it's coming.


Of course it's coming. Ubisoft have invested way too much time and money into the Wii U SKU. They're better off releasing it to mitigate their losses at this stage of development.

If this were an EA game it would be different, they swallowed the losses of Crysis 3 just because they were still having their hissy fit but this is Ubisoft we're talking about.

They should have made a profit on most of their high profile Wii U titles by now - ZombiU, Assassin's Creed III, Just Dance and Rayman Legends will all be money in the bank by now, and releasing another high profile title after hardware sales have increased thanks to Donkey Kong and Mario Kart 8 is a smart idea, particularly if there isn't too much competition from new 1st and 3rd party titles when it launches.

lol this whole thread is full of people thinking it's not coming. You can't just say "of course it's coming" even when most evidence and logic point that it is.

Popular opinion of Wii U naysayers != evidence and logic.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

XboneWins on 01 February 2014
Cobretti2 said:
Lyrikalstylez said:

Is their any point to strictly gaming on or buying a wii u ?

I know people have Nintendo games to look forward to but you guys will be missing out an just too many games
Reminds me of the time I owned a n64 over a ps1, fuck that shit!


lol what? N64 still had better games compared to PS1 overall. I didn't really feel like I would have missed out on much without the PS1 apart from final fantasy

Lol what? PS1 had  the better games than N64 and that is not even close.



Around the Network
archbrix on 01 February 2014
XboneWins said:
Cobretti2 said:
Lyrikalstylez said:

Is their any point to strictly gaming on or buying a wii u ?

I know people have Nintendo games to look forward to but you guys will be missing out an just too many games
Reminds me of the time I owned a n64 over a ps1, fuck that shit!


lol what? N64 still had better games compared to PS1 overall. I didn't really feel like I would have missed out on much without the PS1 apart from final fantasy

Lol what? PS1 had  the better games than N64 and that is not even close.

I agree with Cobretti @bolded.

I will concede that if you were to rank the 100 best games of that generation there would be more PS games in that list than N64 games.  But if we just rank the top 20 games of the generation - the best of the best - then the N64 would have far more games present IMO.



d21lewis on 01 February 2014

I had no idea who Emily Rogers was so I checked out her Twitter. Even SHE seemed shocked by how not getting a comment is somehow a big anti-Nintendo story.



SubiyaCryolite on 01 February 2014
prayformojo said:
Fusioncode said:
superchunk said:
This means Nintendo needs to pay for it or its not happening. Forget it. I following Rol and only buying Nintendo published games.

And that's precisely the reason why 3rd parties are avoiding the WiiU like the plague. Why would they waste time and money porting a game over if nobody bothers to buy?


That is a bold face lie by them. You want to know the real reason why the Wii-U is struggling so hard to attract these huge third party publishers? It's because they can't release half games for full price and sell the other half via DLC due to Nintendo only throwing 32GB in the system. It's the same reason EA left. They wanted to screw people over with their microtransaction bullshit and cram Orgin down their throats. Nintendo doesn't allow for that sort of thing by choice, or design.

In a way, this is exposing the truth about modern AAA publishers. It's letting us see who's who. There use to be a time when the line of thinking was "come up with great original idea, make great game with as much content as humanly possible to entertain the gamer, profit". Now it's mostly "create product, market product, make as much profit as possible from product, repeat". The game industry has become the movie industry now.

It's basically Nintendo and indie devs that still do it the old way, the RIGHT way. Unfortunately, greed is taking over.

Its not a crime for publishers to want to make a profit and DLC is just an optional add on, you can be perfectly fine without it. I bought Skyrim for example and have no intention of getting its expansions. I have Steet Fighter IV AE and dont care about those stupid costumes, or this years update either. But DLC allows those who do to get them, to each their own, everyone wins.

DLC is optional and probably not even purchased by the majority of consumers so thats no Reason for EA or anyone else to skip the U. The platform just isnt economically viable for them yet, plain and simple.



I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime. 

The NX will be a 900p machine

SubiyaCryolite on 01 February 2014
XboneWins said:
Cobretti2 said:
Lyrikalstylez said:

Is their any point to strictly gaming on or buying a wii u ?

I know people have Nintendo games to look forward to but you guys will be missing out an just too many games
Reminds me of the time I owned a n64 over a ps1, fuck that shit!


lol what? N64 still had better games compared to PS1 overall. I didn't really feel like I would have missed out on much without the PS1 apart from final fantasy

Lol what? PS1 had  the better games than N64 and that is not even close.

Indeed, the 64 was great machine but I gather many will have more fond memories of the PSOne over the 64. I know I do. Tekken 3. Resident Evil 1 - 3. Spyro. Soul Blade. Final Fantasy VII - IX. Dino Crisis. Street Fighter EX 2. King of Fighters. Little Mermaid (yes, I said it). F1. Crash. Need For Speed Hot Persuit. Riiiiiiiiiiidge Raceeeer. Silent Hill. Oh gosh, just thinking about it *goosebumps*



I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime. 

The NX will be a 900p machine

prayformojo on 01 February 2014
SubiyaCryolite said:
prayformojo said:
Fusioncode said:
superchunk said:
This means Nintendo needs to pay for it or its not happening. Forget it. I following Rol and only buying Nintendo published games.

And that's precisely the reason why 3rd parties are avoiding the WiiU like the plague. Why would they waste time and money porting a game over if nobody bothers to buy?


That is a bold face lie by them. You want to know the real reason why the Wii-U is struggling so hard to attract these huge third party publishers? It's because they can't release half games for full price and sell the other half via DLC due to Nintendo only throwing 32GB in the system. It's the same reason EA left. They wanted to screw people over with their microtransaction bullshit and cram Orgin down their throats. Nintendo doesn't allow for that sort of thing by choice, or design.

In a way, this is exposing the truth about modern AAA publishers. It's letting us see who's who. There use to be a time when the line of thinking was "come up with great original idea, make great game with as much content as humanly possible to entertain the gamer, profit". Now it's mostly "create product, market product, make as much profit as possible from product, repeat". The game industry has become the movie industry now.

It's basically Nintendo and indie devs that still do it the old way, the RIGHT way. Unfortunately, greed is taking over.

Its not a crime for publishers to want to make a profit and DLC is just an optional add on, you can be perfectly fine without it. I bought Skyrim for example and have no intention of getting its expansions. I have Steet Fighter IV AE and dont care about those stupid costumes, or this years update either. But DLC allows those who do to get them, to each their own, everyone wins.

DLC is optional and probably not even purchased by the majority of consumers so thats no Reason for EA or anyone else to skip the U. The platform just isnt economically viable for them yet, plain and simple.


Why are you and so many people trusting of corporations like EA, who couldn't give two shits about you? I'm not trying to be a dick here, I'm honestly curious. I just don't understand how this isn't obvious to people lol.

DLC was a scam from day ONE. The idea of DLC was first used to support a product once it left the developers hands. It was suppose to IMPROVE gaming. But like everything else invented for good, capitalists got a hold of it and whored it to hell for profit.