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

Forums - Nintendo - Platinum Games talks more about Bayonetta 2.

Zero999 said:
vivster said:
MDMAlliance said:
vivster said:
So when we ask it's port begging but when Nintendo asks for multiplats to be released on their System then the 3rd parties are unfair?


Asking for Bayonetta 2 port on other consoles is like asking a company to give its secret formula to the competition.

Asking for multiplats to be released on a system it's not on is like asking for a popular product available at other distributors to be available at a distributor closer to you.

They are very different things.

Still not seeing the difference. It's both about money.

Nintendo is not releasing the IP on multiple platforms because it would lose WiiU sales. 3rd prty publishers don't release on WiiU because they would lose money.

Wrong on both.

Nintendo is paying for exclusivity, there is no "releasing on others" option.

Third parties don't release on wii u because are stupid or maybe are getting money from sony or MS for that.

Seriously Zero? Go look at the sales for 3rd party titles on WiiU and give me one good reason they should continue to develop for a platform with no viable returns. If WiiU owners don't buy 3rd party games, then they're not going to get 3rd party games. Publishers aren't avoiding the WiiU because they're "stupid" or because they hate Nintendo, it's simply a smarter business option to focus on the platforms where they generate more revenue. Most publishers gave the WiiU a chance last year, yet it completely backfired. COD Ghosts' sales on WiiU only accounted for 0.3% of the total revenue. Not even one percent of sales from that game came from the WiiU.

Stop blaming 3rd parties for not putting games on WiiU. Blame the WiiU owners for not buying games when they get it. 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Around the Network
Fusioncode said:
Zero999 said:
vivster said:
MDMAlliance said:
vivster said:
So when we ask it's port begging but when Nintendo asks for multiplats to be released on their System then the 3rd parties are unfair?


Asking for Bayonetta 2 port on other consoles is like asking a company to give its secret formula to the competition.

Asking for multiplats to be released on a system it's not on is like asking for a popular product available at other distributors to be available at a distributor closer to you.

They are very different things.

Still not seeing the difference. It's both about money.

Nintendo is not releasing the IP on multiple platforms because it would lose WiiU sales. 3rd prty publishers don't release on WiiU because they would lose money.

Wrong on both.

Nintendo is paying for exclusivity, there is no "releasing on others" option.

Third parties don't release on wii u because are stupid or maybe are getting money from sony or MS for that.

Seriously Zero? Go look at the sales for 3rd party titles on WiiU and give me one good reason they should continue to develop for a platform with no viable returns. If WiiU owners don't buy 3rd party games, then they're not going to get 3rd party games. Publishers aren't avoiding the WiiU because they're "stupid" or because they hate Nintendo, it's simply a smarter business option to focus on the platforms where they generate more revenue. Most publishers gave the WiiU a chance last year, yet it completely backfired. COD Ghosts' sales on WiiU only accounted for 0.3% of the total revenue. Not even one percent of sales from that game came from the WiiU.

Stop blaming 3rd parties for not putting games on WiiU. Blame the WiiU owners for not buying games when they get it. 


Why buy it on Wii U when it gets full support elsewhere? I wanted Call of Duty Ghosts on it (got BO2 on it) and it is never in stock at most stores.



TheLegendaryWolf said:
Fusioncode said:
Zero999 said:
vivster said:
MDMAlliance said:
vivster said:
So when we ask it's port begging but when Nintendo asks for multiplats to be released on their System then the 3rd parties are unfair?


Asking for Bayonetta 2 port on other consoles is like asking a company to give its secret formula to the competition.

Asking for multiplats to be released on a system it's not on is like asking for a popular product available at other distributors to be available at a distributor closer to you.

They are very different things.

Still not seeing the difference. It's both about money.

Nintendo is not releasing the IP on multiple platforms because it would lose WiiU sales. 3rd prty publishers don't release on WiiU because they would lose money.

Wrong on both.

Nintendo is paying for exclusivity, there is no "releasing on others" option.

Third parties don't release on wii u because are stupid or maybe are getting money from sony or MS for that.

Seriously Zero? Go look at the sales for 3rd party titles on WiiU and give me one good reason they should continue to develop for a platform with no viable returns. If WiiU owners don't buy 3rd party games, then they're not going to get 3rd party games. Publishers aren't avoiding the WiiU because they're "stupid" or because they hate Nintendo, it's simply a smarter business option to focus on the platforms where they generate more revenue. Most publishers gave the WiiU a chance last year, yet it completely backfired. COD Ghosts' sales on WiiU only accounted for 0.3% of the total revenue. Not even one percent of sales from that game came from the WiiU.

Stop blaming 3rd parties for not putting games on WiiU. Blame the WiiU owners for not buying games when they get it. 


Why buy it on Wii U when it gets full support elsewhere? I wanted Call of Duty Ghosts on it (got BO2 on it) and it is never in stock at most stores.

You couldn't find it on Amazon? 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Fusioncode said:

Seriously Zero? Go look at the sales for 3rd party titles on WiiU and give me one good reason they should continue to develop for a platform with no viable returns. 

If there were no viable returns on games like Black Ops 2, Assassin's Creed 3, and Arkham City, then Ghosts, Assassin's Creed 4, and Arkham Origins wouldn't have come to Wii U.



curl-6 said:
Fusioncode said:

Seriously Zero? Go look at the sales for 3rd party titles on WiiU and give me one good reason they should continue to develop for a platform with no viable returns. 

If there were no viable returns on games like Black Ops 2, Assassin's Creed 3, and Arkham City, then Ghosts, Assassin's Creed 4, and Arkham Origins wouldn't have come to Wii U.

Yet Arkam Origins isn't getting DLC on WiiU, and Watch Dogs is getting delayed. Destiny, Thief, Kingdom Hearts III, Evolve, FFXV, and Elder Scrolls Online aren't coming to the platform at all. Publishers may have ignored the poor sales of Black Ops 2, AC3, and Arkham City since they launched later than the other versions. The same excuse can't be used for their successors in 2012.  Clearly publishers aren't happy with the sales of their previous efforts on the console. 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Around the Network
Fusioncode said:
curl-6 said:
Fusioncode said:

Seriously Zero? Go look at the sales for 3rd party titles on WiiU and give me one good reason they should continue to develop for a platform with no viable returns. 

If there were no viable returns on games like Black Ops 2, Assassin's Creed 3, and Arkham City, then Ghosts, Assassin's Creed 4, and Arkham Origins wouldn't have come to Wii U.

Yet Arkam Origins isn't getting DLC on WiiU, and Watch Dogs is getting delayed. Destiny, Thief, Kingdom Hearts III, Evolve, FFXV, and Elder Scrolls Online aren't coming to the platform at all. Publishers may have ignored the poor sales of Black Ops 2, AC3, and Arkham City since they launched later than the other versions. The same excuse can't be used for their successors in 2012.  Clearly publishers aren't happy with the sales of their previous efforts on the console. 

DLC is another matter, because only a portion of a user base will buy it.

If they didn't turn a profit, the Wii U versions of Origins/Ghosts/Black Flag would have been canned.



curl-6 said:
Fusioncode said:
curl-6 said:
Fusioncode said:

Seriously Zero? Go look at the sales for 3rd party titles on WiiU and give me one good reason they should continue to develop for a platform with no viable returns. 

If there were no viable returns on games like Black Ops 2, Assassin's Creed 3, and Arkham City, then Ghosts, Assassin's Creed 4, and Arkham Origins wouldn't have come to Wii U.

Yet Arkam Origins isn't getting DLC on WiiU, and Watch Dogs is getting delayed. Destiny, Thief, Kingdom Hearts III, Evolve, FFXV, and Elder Scrolls Online aren't coming to the platform at all. Publishers may have ignored the poor sales of Black Ops 2, AC3, and Arkham City since they launched later than the other versions. The same excuse can't be used for their successors in 2012.  Clearly publishers aren't happy with the sales of their previous efforts on the console. 

DLC is another matter, because only a portion of a user base will buy it.

If they didn't turn a profit, the Wii U versions of Origins/Ghosts/Black Flag would have been canned.

Once again, the poor sales of those ports could have been attributed to the fact the WiiU games launched later than the other versions. They gave the WiiU another chance in 2013, and I doubt that payed off. Ubisoft would not have delayed Watch Dogs on WiiU if AC4 had performed to their expectations. 





Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Fusioncode said:

Once again, the poor sales of those ports could have been attributed to the fact the WiiU games launched later than the other versions. They gave the WiiU another chance in 2013, and I doubt that payed off. Ubisoft would not have delayed Watch Dogs on WiiU if AC4 had performed to their expectations. 

Wii U porting is not an overly expensive process. Some of the porting teams were quite small. 200k sales should easily have turned a modest profit.



Fusioncode said:
curl-6 said:
Fusioncode said:
curl-6 said:
Fusioncode said:

Seriously Zero? Go look at the sales for 3rd party titles on WiiU and give me one good reason they should continue to develop for a platform with no viable returns. 

If there were no viable returns on games like Black Ops 2, Assassin's Creed 3, and Arkham City, then Ghosts, Assassin's Creed 4, and Arkham Origins wouldn't have come to Wii U.

Yet Arkam Origins isn't getting DLC on WiiU, and Watch Dogs is getting delayed. Destiny, Thief, Kingdom Hearts III, Evolve, FFXV, and Elder Scrolls Online aren't coming to the platform at all. Publishers may have ignored the poor sales of Black Ops 2, AC3, and Arkham City since they launched later than the other versions. The same excuse can't be used for their successors in 2012.  Clearly publishers aren't happy with the sales of their previous efforts on the console. 

DLC is another matter, because only a portion of a user base will buy it.

If they didn't turn a profit, the Wii U versions of Origins/Ghosts/Black Flag would have been canned.

Once again, the poor sales of those ports could have been attributed to the fact the WiiU games launched later than the other versions. They gave the WiiU another chance in 2013, and I doubt that payed off. Ubisoft would not have delayed Watch Dogs on WiiU if AC4 had performed to their expectations. 



They could very well have if it was an issue of limited resources. Somebody had to get delayed, it seems.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

When are they going to "understand." If they did release it on the other consoles, then Nintendo literally paid for the game's development just so that their competitors could have it as well. They basically would've given their money to their competitors. That doesn't make any sense from a business viewpoint. It's a contract, simple as that. If Sony or MS snatched exclusivity for their console(s), then you wouldn't see it on the other consoles (including Wii U)

That's like a baseball stadium helping out a beer/soda co. with finances or advertisement; in return they get exclusivity for their drinks in sales in said stadium. You're not going to see Coca Cola or Dr. Pepper in Wrigley Field if Pepsi Co. sealed the deal with the owners.

Same with Nintendo and Platinum Games. They paid for the exclusivity by throwing their own money in the development. Sony and MS or any third party co. could'v gotten the rights, but Nintendo beat them to it.